• 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

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
My ideology doesn't support this nor did I applaud Rush Limbaugh. You really need to stop making up stuff.




Me too. You're mad about a woman having to have a tube stuck up her vagina and I'm mad that women are allowed to have their babies sucked out of their bodies with a vacuum and tossed in the trash. One of those is worse than the other.....



Katie, I don't think even you know what you're talking about.

What you have yet to do is state what women's right you are for. You have yet to say with clarity and certainty if you are for or against abortion. Right now as you stand you are on both sides of the fence. You support it this way but not that way. Do you want to make the choice. Should the sign say call Josie and ask if this abortion is okay with her?

In your opinion one is worse than the other. One is government enforce which you don't like. One is a women's choice which you don't like. So are you for government control over women's rights or not. Again you want it both ways. You don't want abortion but you don't want women forced into invasive procedures. This is what the government is doing to try and make you happy with less abortions.
I do know exactly what I am talking about. I am pro choice. I am against invasive procedures. If a women has a right I am not giving it back. I will not support a right wing agenda when the right wing is more apt to screw with my rights as a woman. I will not support a right wing agenda when they applaud a broadcaster who calls women who fight for their rights feminazi's and sluts on the air. Yes the right wing does applaud him.
You blow both way's on abortion and you support the right yet you want to stand with women? It is you I suggest who doesn't know what she is talking about and or what she actually supports.
 

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
^^^ This is one of the things that has me scratching my head. Josie--I don't understand how you are interpreting great programs such as Head Start as a form of government control. Will you explain a bit more where you're coming from?
I just don't see how you got there.
If this has been answered all ready, my apologies. I'm not quite to the end of the thread.

I'm pretty big on personal responsibility and the family structure. We shouldn't need programs like Head Start (which doesn't work anyway). Families should be providing that pre-education structure to their children. Parents should be providing home environments that encourage learning and promote literacy. I've been a teacher for almost 10 years now. I was a reading specialist for about half that time. The kids I saw who were 2-3 reading levels behind were almost exclusively from families that didn't give a rat's ass about education. THAT is where the problem is. No government program is going to solve the breakdown of the family and the strikingly common notion that it's up to the government to do everything in terms of teaching kids.
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
61,842
Reaction score
43,205
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I'm pretty big on personal responsibility and the family structure. We shouldn't need programs like Head Start (which doesn't work anyway). Families should be providing that pre-education structure to their children. Parents should be providing home environments that encourage learning and promote literacy. I've been a teacher for almost 10 years now. I was a reading specialist for about half that time. The kids I saw who were 2-3 reading levels behind were almost exclusively from families that didn't give a rat's ass about education. THAT is where the problem is. No government program is going to solve the breakdown of the family and the strikingly common notion that it's up to the government to do everything in terms of teaching kids.

People should this and people should that, but moralizing doesn't actually fix anything. So how do you propose a solution that is functional, consistent, and reliable?
 

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
I know I referred to first-wave feminists and their predecessors. That's because you gave a rebuttal to Josie that was rather lacking. I haven't actually named any names except Alice Paul, if you looked closely.
I do know you named no names. But Josie referred to first wave feminists. I use those names to make my rebuttal. I did not expand it to second and third wave feminists. I thought it would change the course of the thread. But the first wave was not faced with reproductive rights. They were concerned about voting and I understand. I do believe these women of the first wave would very well have supported the causes that are still on the fire today whether they agreed with them or not. I personally would not have an abortion but I do believe the woman has a right to choose. How would I be helping the cause of women everywhere if I am blinded by what I wanted. I see the need and would stand behind it. I may not have one but does this give me the right to tell women everywhere they can't have the choice because I would not have an abortion? No
 

ThePlayDrive

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
19,610
Reaction score
7,647
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re-Post for the 2nd time:
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.

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.
 

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
I'm pretty big on personal responsibility and the family structure. We shouldn't need programs like Head Start (which doesn't work anyway). Families should be providing that pre-education structure to their children. Parents should be providing home environments that encourage learning and promote literacy. I've been a teacher for almost 10 years now. I was a reading specialist for about half that time. The kids I saw who were 2-3 reading levels behind were almost exclusively from families that didn't give a rat's ass about education. THAT is where the problem is. No government program is going to solve the breakdown of the family and the strikingly common notion that it's up to the government to do everything in terms of teaching kids.
Of course govenment can't fix everything and no one would expect it can. There are things broken that can be helped. Maybe it is not the best way but by helping some you do more then letting everyone fall off the cliff.
Here is an example you speak of families that don't give a rat's ass about education. How would your classes look if all the unwanted children were born into the world with no love and no help? How many students would you be trying to teach and how much more would the government be paying to provide for these kids?
 

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
People should this and people should that, but moralizing doesn't actually fix anything. So how do you propose a solution that is functional, consistent, and reliable?

That's what is difficult. You can't make parents teach their kids. You can't make a mother stop drinking all the time. You can't force a dad to pay attention to his little girl. They have to want to. I support any organization that tries to encourage and teach parents to do the right thing. What else can we do?
 

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
30,123
Reaction score
17,541
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I do believe these women of the first wave would very well have supported the causes that are still on the fire today whether they agreed with them or not. I personally would not have an abortion but I do believe the woman has a right to choose.

How so? Catt wasn't on the same page as Paul in the 1920s, and Catt wasn't on the same page as Lucy Stone, and Lucy Stone wasn't on the same page as Amelia Bloomer... You can't necessarily transport them to the 1970s either, let alone 2012. Is it because they "pushed the boundaries" to various extents? That still ignores that, as Moynihan once said, "The best way to understand one's politics is to look at when they were born."
 
Last edited:

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
Re-Post for the 2nd time:

Yes, TPD. I read your post and I agreed with it. There's not much to say other than it's much easier to change insurance companies than it is to overthrow the government.
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
61,842
Reaction score
43,205
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
That's what is difficult. You can't make parents teach their kids. You can't make a mother stop drinking all the time. You can't force a dad to pay attention to his little girl. They have to want to. I support any organization that tries to encourage and teach parents to do the right thing. What else can we do?

I know. The best thing we can do is to try to at least help the kids and any real solution has to be one with guaranteed funding and some sort of coherent structure. Shaking your fist at the problems of the world does nothing but frustrate the fist shaker. I wish there was a better solution, but there isn't one. A child is their own person and they should be given as much a chance at a reasonable life as possible and spared as much as possible from the sins of the parents. There is no other moral way to go about it.
 
Last edited:

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
That's what is difficult. You can't make parents teach their kids. You can't make a mother stop drinking all the time. You can't force a dad to pay attention to his little girl. They have to want to. I support any organization that tries to encourage and teach parents to do the right thing. What else can we do?

Planned Parenthood helps with parenting skills as well.
 

ThePlayDrive

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
19,610
Reaction score
7,647
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That's what is difficult. You can't make parents teach their kids. You can't make a mother stop drinking all the time. You can't force a dad to pay attention to his little girl. They have to want to. I support any organization that tries to encourage and teach parents to do the right thing. What else can we do?
Yeah, but government programs rarely seek to solve those problems. They seek to solve problems like people who can't afford college. Consequently, I don't see the significance of your point. You're saying that the government can't fix problems that most of its policies don't even seek to solve, but that are very real nonetheless.
 

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
I know. The best thing we can do is to try to at least help the kids and any real solution has to be one with guaranteed funding and some sort of coherent structure. Shaking your fist at the problems of the world does nothing but frustrate the fist shaker. I wish there was a better solution, but there isn't one.

Kids spend most of their time at home with their family. That is where they receive much of their education in whatever their parent wants them to learn. I had a fourth grader who could barely read, but she sure knew a hell of a lot about sex. What solution from the government is going to change the moral compass of a parent?
 

ThePlayDrive

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
19,610
Reaction score
7,647
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yes, TPD. I read your post and I agreed with it. There's not much to say other than it's much easier to change insurance companies than it is to overthrow the government.
I see we've gotten to the hyperbolic part of the thread. What does overthrowing the government have to do with anything I said?

Jesus Christ, is it possible to get an honest debate over here?
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
61,842
Reaction score
43,205
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Kids spend most of their time at home with their family. That is where they receive much of their education in whatever their parent wants them to learn. I had a fourth grader who could barely read, but she sure knew a hell of a lot about sex. What solution from the government is going to change the moral compass of a parent?

None that I am aware of. I don't know of any government program that is aimed at people's moral compass and I doubt its possible.
 

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
I see we've gotten to the hyperbolic part of the thread. What does overthrowing the government have to do with anything I said?

I got that from...

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.

Ya know... Declaration of Independence stuff.
 

SmokeAndMirrors

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
18,282
Reaction score
16,154
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Uh, Josie? I don't wanna freak you out or anything, but I have news.

Your medical care is already substantially governmentally regulated. As in, every drug you have ever been prescribed goes through the government first, and if it doesn't go through the government, doctors don't use it.

Oh no! Government social control!

Only here's the thing.

Would you rather corporations who couldn't care less about whether their drugs work or are safe were solely in charge of that? It tends to work out rather poorly for patients, when that happens.

Also. It is because of the government that you cannot be refused care in the ER. Because again, businesses would rather let you die than take the hit if you can't pay.

And finally, in what way is the government saying "You can't deny sick people coverage, and health insurance should be within the range of working people without completely bankrupting them" the government exercising "control" over your healthcare? You can still accept or deny any treatment you like, choose your doctor, choose your options, write your own will, do whatever the hell you want.

My experience with socialized medicine (European and Oceanic) is considerably better than my experience in the US both in terms of the time it takes to be seen and in the quality of care. It may be true that in terms of timing is sort of depends on what the problem is and where you are, but in the US more complicated medical problems often don't get fully treated at all due to finances, and the waiting times are not necessarily any better. I've waiting 2 months in the US for an appointment before, for a relatively common and simple procedure.
 

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
None that I am aware of. I don't know of any government program that is aimed at people's moral compass and I doubt its possible.

It's so frickin' frustrating to be a teacher sometimes. I just want to shake these parents and say "What the hell are you doing?? This is your child's future, you idiot!"
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
61,842
Reaction score
43,205
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
It's so frickin' frustrating to be a teacher sometimes. I just want to shake these parents and say "What the hell are you doing?? This is your child's future, you idiot!"

I know :(

njkjkkjl
 

Billy the Kid

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2012
Messages
2,449
Reaction score
563
Gender
Undisclosed
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.


Some folks find it difficult to make decisions.


There's a book by a former union leader, Eric Hoffer - The True Believer - who explains that people "join" unions because they're afraid of making a mistake. Thus if the "union" says something and it's wrong, then they can say "but I didn't make that decision the union leader did".
 

ThePlayDrive

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
19,610
Reaction score
7,647
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I got that from...

Ya know... Declaration of Independence stuff.
By "means for the people to change it", I meant non-hyperbolic stuff like, you know, voting. For example, voting for Democrats who won't limit healthcare choices by banning abortion.
 

lizzie

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
28,580
Reaction score
31,554
Location
between two worlds
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I've been reading this thread off and on for about the past hour, and I think I understand where Josie is coming from, and the reason why some may not. The issue is women's rights, government control (or regulation), and how the two are related.

Women fought long and hard for their rights over a long period of time, and finally achieved them for the most part. I've seen the same with equal opportunity rights in the workplace, and rights not to be discriminated against, based on sex, color, creed, etc. I think that where the gulf of misunderstanding on these issues, and how they relate to government regulation and control is that once women obtained their rights, they did not necessarily expect to hold up their end of the deal, and have in turn, depended heavily on government to help subsidize those rights, thus handing over their *power* to government.

As an example, after abortion rights became a reality, women didn't just take it upon themselves to be content and act upon that right to resolve a problematic (for them) pregnancy. What we started seeing was a new form of government-subsidized services for funding abortion, family planning, and birth control. Thus, government not only made it legal, but took up some of the responsibility for paying for the rights women now enjoyed, rather than women bearing that responsibility themselves. So in effect, women have rights, but they haven't actually been empowered fully, as they depend on government to pay for the implementation of those rights. We see the same with many women who have children with Medicaid as their insurer for having their children, then keeping the children on Medicaid after they are born. Many of these are women in middle and low income environments, but they essentially rely on Uncle Sam to be the provider that husbands once were in our society.

Just my rambling thoughts at the moment..........
 

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
How so? Catt wasn't on the same page as Paul in the 1920s, and Catt wasn't on the same page as Lucy Stone, and Lucy Stone wasn't on the same page as Amelia Bloomer... You can't necessarily transport them to the 1970s either, let alone 2012. Is it because they "pushed the boundaries" to various extents? That still ignores that, as Moynihan once said, "The best way to understand one's politics is to look at when they were born."
Yes and when someone brings up two first wave feminists in a debate on current feminism You try and adapt what they are saying. Of course their issues were totally different. Their mindset was totally different. So I tried to extrapolate these women into the future. They would not fight against women's rights. No way. If you want to debate this start a thread and I will be happy to join in and not let Josie's thread get all bent out of shape.
 

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
I've been reading this thread off and on for about the past hour, and I think I understand where Josie is coming from, and the reason why some may not. The issue is women's rights, government control (or regulation), and how the two are related.

Women fought long and hard for their rights over a long period of time, and finally achieved them for the most part. I've seen the same with equal opportunity rights in the workplace, and rights not to be discriminated against, based on sex, color, creed, etc. I think that where the gulf of misunderstanding on these issues, and how they relate to government regulation and control is that once women obtained their rights, they did not necessarily expect to hold up their end of the deal, and have in turn, depended heavily on government to help subsidize those rights, thus handing over their *power* to government.

As an example, after abortion rights became a reality, women didn't just take it upon themselves to be content and act upon that right to resolve a problematic (for them) pregnancy. What we started seeing was a new form of government-subsidized services for funding abortion, family planning, and birth control. Thus, government not only made it legal, but took up some of the responsibility for paying for the rights women now enjoyed, rather than women bearing that responsibility themselves. So in effect, women have rights, but they haven't actually been empowered fully, as they depend on government to pay for the implementation of those rights. We see the same with many women who have children with Medicaid as their insurer for having their children, then keeping the children on Medicaid after they are born. Many of these are women in middle and low income environments, but they essentially rely on Uncle Sam to be the provider that husbands once were in our society.

Just my rambling thoughts at the moment..........

But neither issue deals with women's rights. Both issues involve male and female's. I just find it difficult to think of a right wing feminist. Considering the beliefs of the right wing they do not mesh.
 

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
I've been reading this thread off and on for about the past hour, and I think I understand where Josie is coming from, and the reason why some may not. The issue is women's rights, government control (or regulation), and how the two are related.

Women fought long and hard for their rights over a long period of time, and finally achieved them for the most part. I've seen the same with equal opportunity rights in the workplace, and rights not to be discriminated against, based on sex, color, creed, etc. I think that where the gulf of misunderstanding on these issues, and how they relate to government regulation and control is that once women obtained their rights, they did not necessarily expect to hold up their end of the deal, and have in turn, depended heavily on government to help subsidize those rights, thus handing over their *power* to government.

As an example, after abortion rights became a reality, women didn't just take it upon themselves to be content and act upon that right to resolve a problematic (for them) pregnancy. What we started seeing was a new form of government-subsidized services for funding abortion, family planning, and birth control. Thus, government not only made it legal, but took up some of the responsibility for paying for the rights women now enjoyed, rather than women bearing that responsibility themselves. So in effect, women have rights, but they haven't actually been empowered fully, as they depend on government to pay for the implementation of those rights. We see the same with many women who have children with Medicaid as their insurer for having their children, then keeping the children on Medicaid after they are born. Many of these are women in middle and low income environments, but they essentially rely on Uncle Sam to be the provider that husbands once were in our society.

Just my rambling thoughts at the moment..........

Exactly. I'm just gonna shut up and let lizzie talk. :)
 
Top Bottom