Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

What the hell happened to Texas?Follow

#102 Oct 28 2011 at 2:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Elinda, just buy him some KY or Astroglide and then you won't have to worry about your lotion. It'll be fun to embarrass and emotionally scar him. Smiley: grin

Age is only one factor in sex drive. I suppose my comment about everyone needing sex was a bit over the top. Not everyone needs it, but most people do. It's not that uncommon a thought that sex is a basic human need.
#103 Oct 28 2011 at 2:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Wonder Gem PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Elinda, just buy him some KY or Astroglide and then you won't have to worry about your lotion.

RealDoll. Or go cheap with a Fleshlight. Cheapskate.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#104 Oct 28 2011 at 2:37 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Wonder Gem PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
gbaji wrote:


This obviously gets further complicated when the issue of state funding for abortion comes up, because then you've got both the moral argument *and* the cost argument.


It shouldn't. For one, the Hyde amendment, which outlaws federal funding for all abortions except in cases of rape, incest or if the woman's life is in danger, has been around since shortly after Roe v. Wade was passed.


Sure. But the Hyde amendment only applies to funding through HHS. Funding into the health care exchanges under Obamacare do *not* go through HHS. Ergo, there's no restriction for those funds to pay for abortions of any kind. I thought most people understood this. It's why there was a big deal about this, and why Obama did the whole executive order bandaid. Hyde does not apply to Obamacare. Well, not all of it, and certainly not the most relevant portions.

Quote:
For two, abortions are less expensive than giving birth.


I get that. But you're asking people to pay for something that they think is immoral. Your argument is like saying that a frugal vegan is being hypocritical because he's occasionally willing to pay $50 for a dinner at a high end restaurant that provides vegan meals, but wont pay $5 for a bacon cheeseburger.


Quote:
What really irritates me, is the conservatives who get all up in arms about abortion, but then offer no solutions over what to do about unintended pregnancies and the children that result.


Because conservatives believe in that whole "small government" thing. It's not the government's responsibility to protect you from your own choices. That's your job. We don't want to pay for pregnancy care *or* abortions. That's our starting position. Seems pretty consistent to me.

Quote:
Conservatives are typically anti social assistance of any kind, so they don't like welfare, they don't like paying for women's birth control.


Yup. Because we believe that it's not the government's role to do those things. We believe that when the government does get involved in these things, it can (and will) use that financial power to control those aspects of society. We also believe that government's actions in these areas can cause social problems to get worse since they're effectively eliminating the consequences for people's actions (selectively, which is where the social control aspect comes in).


We just think that government should stay out of those things as much as possible.


Quote:
It's really easy to say "Well they shouldn't be out having sex!" That's easy to say when you're affluent and married. Sex is a biological need. Sure, we don't need it to stay alive, but we need it to stay sane.



Again. We don't care what you do. Freedom to do whatever you want comes with the responsibility for whatever results occur. It always amuses me when people try to argue that by *not* paying for abortions or welfare or whatever that conservatives are somehow trying to control what people do. It's really the exact opposite if you stop and think about it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#105 Oct 28 2011 at 4:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It's why there was a big deal about this, and why Obama did the whole executive order bandaid.

That's not accurate but it does illustrate why the executive order happened Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#106 Oct 28 2011 at 5:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel wrote:
Wonder Gem PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Elinda, just buy him some KY or Astroglide and then you won't have to worry about your lotion.

RealDoll. Or go cheap with a Fleshlight. Cheapskate.


Pfft. Teenage boys don't need things that intricate unless they pay for it themselves. Plus buying a RealDoll or a Fleshlight for your kid is kinda creepy. Buying them lube is just funny.
#107 Oct 28 2011 at 5:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
But you're asking people to pay for something that they think is immoral. Your argument is like saying that a frugal vegan is being hypocritical because he's occasionally willing to pay $50 for a dinner at a high end restaurant that provides vegan meals, but wont pay $5 for a bacon cheeseburger.


A lot of the vegans I know don't mind buying their friends a meal on occasion, even if that meal is a bacon cheeseburger. Sure they're not going to eat one themselves, and some might not want to have to smell it, but they're not going to force their opinions down someone else's throat. I get what you're trying to say, but your analogy is stupid.

Quote:
It's not the government's responsibility to protect you from your own choices. That's your job. We don't want to pay for pregnancy care *or* abortions. That's our starting position. Seems pretty consistent to me.


You may not want to, but you already do. I recently got into a fight with someone on facebook about this. They claimed that at least in our state, ANYONE who is pregnant without health insurance, regardless of their income, can get access to the state funded health care system (which is supposed to be only for poor people) and not have to pay a dime. I have my doubts about this, but I haven't done research to actually look into it. It would seem logical to me from a fiscal perspective, that if you don't like the government using your taxes to pay for other people's "mistakes," wouldn't you prefer to go the cheaper rout so there is less government control? Or does that just lead to the tin foil hat argument that the government will start mandating abortions for low income women?

Quote:
We don't care what you do. Freedom to do whatever you want comes with the responsibility for whatever results occur. It always amuses me when people try to argue that by *not* paying for abortions or welfare or whatever that conservatives are somehow trying to control what people do. It's really the exact opposite if you stop and think about it.


I know we're talking about abortion here, but there are several other issues (including gay marriage) that speak otherwise. I get that some people only have the political issue with state funded abortions. I disagree with it, but I understand where they're coming from. What about personhood amendments though, or amendments to try and make abortion illegal no matter what? Those are issues where conservatives are most definitely trying to control what people do. A personhood amendment would essentially make it illegal for women to use hormonal birth control, because it prevents implantation of the embryo. Same thing with IUDs, which is the method of birth control I use. I don't know about you, but I don't want go back to the days where the only BC methods were condoms.
#108 Oct 28 2011 at 8:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
gbaji wrote:

Quote:
For two, abortions are less expensive than giving birth.


I get that. But you're asking people to pay for something that they think is immoral.

And I think it's wrong to pay for a woman to give birth to a child she's going to abuse and neglect.
#109 Oct 28 2011 at 8:38 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Wonder Gem PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Quote:
But you're asking people to pay for something that they think is immoral. Your argument is like saying that a frugal vegan is being hypocritical because he's occasionally willing to pay $50 for a dinner at a high end restaurant that provides vegan meals, but wont pay $5 for a bacon cheeseburger.


A lot of the vegans I know don't mind buying their friends a meal on occasion, even if that meal is a bacon cheeseburger. Sure they're not going to eat one themselves, and some might not want to have to smell it, but they're not going to force their opinions down someone else's throat. I get what you're trying to say, but your analogy is stupid.


The analogy was addressing the claim of hypocrisy on the part of the vegan. If he's ok with occasionally paying for the $5 burger, that's his choice. But what I'm arguing against is the claim that any vegan who *ever* is willing to pay $50 for a vegan meal must also pay on demand for a $5 burger for anyone who wants it. And that is similar to an argument saying that it's somehow hypocritical for a conservative to be ok with occasionally paying for pregnancy care, but not for an abortion.

Quote:
Quote:
It's not the government's responsibility to protect you from your own choices. That's your job. We don't want to pay for pregnancy care *or* abortions. That's our starting position. Seems pretty consistent to me.


You may not want to, but you already do.


But that's a slippery slope argument. You're saying that since we already pay this, we may as well pay for that as well...

And you're conveniently ignoring that by and large conservative have opposed paying for those existing services as well. So because conservatives failed to prevent some government spending, we should just abandon attempts to prevent even more? That's a pretty weak argument, don't you think?

Quote:
It would seem logical to me from a fiscal perspective, that if you don't like the government using your taxes to pay for other people's "mistakes," wouldn't you prefer to go the cheaper rout so there is less government control? Or does that just lead to the tin foil hat argument that the government will start mandating abortions for low income women?


Or suggesting that it's a lower cost solution, like you did earlier with the whole "Why pay $30k for pregnancy care, when you can pay $1k for an abortion, tops?". The lowest cost solution is to not pay for either. And I don't think it's a tin-foil-hat counter to say that paying for one will lead to more of the other, when you yourself made exactly that argument. We're not wrong to say that once government starts paying for something, it will start controlling that thing. That doesn't require some heavy handed mandate though. It can take the simple form of people being more willing to accept government funding for abortion "because it's cheaper than what we're paying for now".

Where's the tin-foil hat now?

Quote:
Quote:
We don't care what you do. Freedom to do whatever you want comes with the responsibility for whatever results occur. It always amuses me when people try to argue that by *not* paying for abortions or welfare or whatever that conservatives are somehow trying to control what people do. It's really the exact opposite if you stop and think about it.


I know we're talking about abortion here, but there are several other issues (including gay marriage) that speak otherwise.


How so? Gay marriage is specifically about not extending the government's funding of an activity (marriage in this case). What you're arguing is pretty darn similar to the whole "We already fund pregnancies, so why not abortions?" argument. We already provide benefits to straight couples, so why not gay couples as well? In both cases, the conservative position is in opposition to expanding the range of things that the government (taxpayer ultimately) is paying for.


Quote:
I get that some people only have the political issue with state funded abortions. I disagree with it, but I understand where they're coming from. What about personhood amendments though, or amendments to try and make abortion illegal no matter what? Those are issues where conservatives are most definitely trying to control what people do.


This brings us back to what a "conservative" is though, doesn't it? Some people do argue for those sorts of things. But they are not even remotely close to being representative of all conservatives, and I'd argue strongly (I have in fact) that their motivations have nothing to do with their conservative positions, but with their own ethical take on the issue itself. Anti-abortionists tend to be conservative, but that does not make all conservatives anti-abortionists. Just as I would never argue that the desire to legalize abortion up to the instant of birth is a defining liberal position. Some liberals do want this, but most are sensible not to agree.


Quote:
A personhood amendment would essentially make it illegal for women to use hormonal birth control, because it prevents implantation of the embryo. Same thing with IUDs, which is the method of birth control I use. I don't know about you, but I don't want go back to the days where the only BC methods were condoms.



As long as we agree that there's a difference between "illegal" and "not funded by the government". Unfortunately, far too often, we conservatives get unfairly accused of wanting to ban something, when all we're really doing is fighting against the government paying for that thing.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#110 Oct 28 2011 at 8:39 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Nadenu wrote:
gbaji wrote:

Quote:
For two, abortions are less expensive than giving birth.


I get that. But you're asking people to pay for something that they think is immoral.

And I think it's wrong to pay for a woman to give birth to a child she's going to abuse and neglect.


Excellent. Then let's not pay for it. Do you see how paying for her to have an abortion is going in the wrong direction?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#111 Oct 28 2011 at 8:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
gbaji wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
gbaji wrote:

Quote:
For two, abortions are less expensive than giving birth.


I get that. But you're asking people to pay for something that they think is immoral.

And I think it's wrong to pay for a woman to give birth to a child she's going to abuse and neglect.


Excellent. Then let's not pay for it. Do you see how paying for her to have an abortion is going in the wrong direction?

First off, let me say that I don't think we really should be paying for all abortions. Like has been stated, they're fairly cheap and most women can afford them if they really want one.

But the women that can't afford ANYTHING will get on Medicare and you, me, and everyone else will pay for her to give birth to a kid that she may not really want. But she's going to go ahead and have it because it's free, and she'd have to fork over the 300-500 bucks to get rid of the pregnancy.

So for me, from a moral standpoint, if a woman really doesn't want a baby, if she's a potential abuser, then yes. I'll pay my taxes to fund her abortion rather than fund her birth and then possibly fund the funeral.
#112 Oct 29 2011 at 5:02 AM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
gbaji wrote:
I get that. But you're asking people to pay for something that they think is immoral. Your argument is like saying that a frugal vegan is being hypocritical because he's occasionally willing to pay $50 for a dinner at a high end restaurant that provides vegan meals, but wont pay $5 for a bacon cheeseburger.

So if I find it immoral that I pay full rate taxes, but rich people get tax breaks, I can not pay taxes?
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#113 Oct 29 2011 at 6:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel wrote:
.
Screenshot
Smiley: laugh I totally forgot that one. Thanks.

varusword75 wrote:
loob,

Quote:
and have less of a desire for cheap one night stands


Perhaps you should try expensive hookers.
??? Hookers, even expensive ones, would be less emotionally satisfying than a one night stand. And that would cut into my video game money.
#114 Oct 30 2011 at 3:22 AM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
It's not the government's responsibility to protect you from your own choices. That's your job. We don't want to pay for pregnancy care *or* abortions. That's our starting position. Seems pretty consistent to me.


You may not want to, but you already do.


But that's a slippery slope argument. You're saying that since we already pay this, we may as well pay for that as well...[/quote]

No, that's not at all what I was saying. What I said, was that if we as taxpayers already pay for a woman to give birth to a child, it makes more sense to also pay for abortions, because it would save the country money. Like Nadenu said, a poor woman who cannot afford to get an abortion is pretty likely to go ahead and give birth, regardless of whether or not she actually WANTS to have the child (let alone keep it) because it's free. You aren't really paying for labor AND abortions, you're paying for abortions INSTEAD of labor.

Quote:
How so? Gay marriage is specifically about not extending the government's funding of an activity (marriage in this case). What you're arguing is pretty darn similar to the whole "We already fund pregnancies, so why not abortions?" argument. We already provide benefits to straight couples, so why not gay couples as well? In both cases, the conservative position is in opposition to expanding the range of things that the government (taxpayer ultimately) is paying for.


So then are you saying that you would support the abolishment of the state sponsored marriage? That's something I've been saying for years, but it seems like most people don't like that idea. Still, I've never heard a conservative person speak out against gay marriage use the argument that tax payers shouldn't pay for gay couples to get tax credits and such, it's because "The Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman!" That makes it pretty obvious to me that conservatives as a whole, oppose gay marriage because they think it's immoral, not because they object to the government giving married couples handouts. I absolutely agree that the government should have no stake whatsoever in peoples' relationships. It's none of their damn business. State sponsored marriage should be abolished, and make everyone go through the hoops gay couples have to do, to be able to see their partner in the hospital, or to gain inheritance when their partner passes. If people want to get "married" they can do it in a church.

Quote:
A personhood amendment would essentially make it illegal for women to use hormonal birth control, because it prevents implantation of the embryo. Same thing with IUDs, which is the method of birth control I use. I don't know about you, but I don't want go back to the days where the only BC methods were condoms.


As long as we agree that there's a difference between "illegal" and "not funded by the government". Unfortunately, far too often, we conservatives get unfairly accused of wanting to ban something, when all we're really doing is fighting against the government paying for that thing.[/quote]

Absolutely. I'm not talking about funding here, I'm talking about the legality of the product. I do personally believe that it is both more moral and more cost effective for the government to fund birth control for women and men who cannot afford it, but that has nothing to do with this issue. I don't even think most conservatives really grasp the repercussions of what a personhood amendment could do. Not only could it make most methods of birth control illegal (afaik the only method that prevents conception is the condom), it could also open the flood gates to every miscarriage being investigated to ensure the woman did not do something to cause the death of her fetus. For example, if a woman were to drink, or to engage in physically rigorous activities, which caused the miscarriage, she could go to prison for murder. It would also make stem cell research illegal, which has helped make huge strides in medical research.

Rachel Maddow did a great segment on her show last week about Mitt Romney being asked about his stance on a personhood amendment. He didn't seem to understand how birth control works either. When the woman who initially asked the question explained to him how such an amendment would affect the legality of birth control, he simply thanked her for her question, even though he never actually answered it.
#115 Oct 30 2011 at 7:46 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
loob,
Quote:
and have less of a desire for cheap one night stands
Perhaps you should try expensive hookers.
??? Hookers, even expensive ones, would be less emotionally satisfying than a one night stand. And that would cut into my video game money.
Yeah, but his hookers already have joysticks so it's pretty much both.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#116 Oct 31 2011 at 4:53 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Wonder Gem PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But that's a slippery slope argument. You're saying that since we already pay this, we may as well pay for that as well...


No, that's not at all what I was saying. What I said, was that if we as taxpayers already pay for a woman to give birth to a child, it makes more sense to also pay for abortions, because it would save the country money.


Smiley: confused

Quote:
You aren't really paying for labor AND abortions, you're paying for abortions INSTEAD of labor.


That's not the point though. The point is that the fact that we're already paying for one thing (labor/pregnancy-care/whatever) is used as an argument for also paying for something else (abortion). It's not about what a given specific person receives, but the scope of things we're willing to pay for.

Quote:
So then are you saying that you would support the abolishment of the state sponsored marriage?


No. I'm saying that just because we already pay money for one thing does not constitute a valid argument for extending the list of things we pay for to include another. I'm saying that we should clearly define *why* we pay for things and then decide in each case if what we're doing makes sense rather than side step the issue by declaring the receipt of that payment a "right" and then demanding that it must be granted to everyone.

Quote:
Still, I've never heard a conservative person speak out against gay marriage use the argument that tax payers shouldn't pay for gay couples to get tax credits and such...


Never? Not even on this forum?

Quote:
Quote:
As long as we agree that there's a difference between "illegal" and "not funded by the government". Unfortunately, far too often, we conservatives get unfairly accused of wanting to ban something, when all we're really doing is fighting against the government paying for that thing.


Absolutely. I'm not talking about funding here, I'm talking about the legality of the product. I do personally believe that it is both more moral and more cost effective for the government to fund birth control for women and men who cannot afford it, but that has nothing to do with this issue.


I think that it has a lot to do with the issue. It's hard to find clean examples where there really is just a bill being proposed that actually makes it illegal to obtain the forms of birth control you're talking about. There are a hell of a lot more examples of liberal mouthpieces claiming that a given law will make it "impossible for a woman to obtain X, Y, and Z", which makes people label it a "ban", but when you look at the actual law, it just says that the government can't require X, Y, or Z, or pay for X, Y, or Z. Which is not at all about making something illegal.

Quote:
I don't even think most conservatives really grasp the repercussions of what a personhood amendment could do. Not only could it make most methods of birth control illegal (afaik the only method that prevents conception is the condom), it could also open the flood gates to every miscarriage being investigated to ensure the woman did not do something to cause the death of her fetus. For example, if a woman were to drink, or to engage in physically rigorous activities, which caused the miscarriage, she could go to prison for murder. It would also make stem cell research illegal, which has helped make huge strides in medical research.

Rachel Maddow did a great segment on her show last week about Mitt Romney being asked about his stance on a personhood amendment. He didn't seem to understand how birth control works either. When the woman who initially asked the question explained to him how such an amendment would affect the legality of birth control, he simply thanked her for her question, even though he never actually answered it.



He probably didn't have a clue what she was talking about. Pretty much no one outside of the very small percentage of abortion abolitionists and liberal fearmongers talk about this. Why? Because it's not going to happen. For the same reason why we're not going to pass laws allowing elective abortion right up until the moment before birth, we're not going to pass laws preventing all abortions under any conditions.

I have *never* heard a "personhood amendment" being talked about by conservatives seriously. The likes of Maddow go looking for the incredibly small percentage of people who think this is a good idea and pretend it's front and center the core of the conservative ideology. It's not. And this is kinda exactly what I've been talking about in this thread. The perception that many liberals have of what conservatives really care about is incredibly warped. And that perception is unfortunately what gets smeared onto our TVs all the time and influences people's opinions.


It's not going to happen. The GOP controlled both houses of congress and the presidency for 6 years. Guess what? There was no personhood amendment passed. Abortion was not made illegal across the country. Children were not forced to pray in public schools. Creationism was not mandated to be taught as science in public schools either. Imagine that! All the scary stuff that liberals have told you would happen.... didn't happen.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#117 Oct 31 2011 at 5:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
We also had years of "abstinence only" education and have a GOP witchhunt against Planned Parenthood and presidential candidates taking vows to fight against abortion.

But, yeah, it's not noteworthy on the GOP docket Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#118 Oct 31 2011 at 6:15 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
We also had years of "abstinence only" education and have a GOP witchhunt against Planned Parenthood and presidential candidates taking vows to fight against abortion.


All great examples of what I'm talking about. Show me were it became illegal to teach anything but abstinence in schools, rather than simply making it an option. Show me were it became illegal for Planned Parent to perform abortions rather than attempting to prevent federal funds (which are supposed to not pay for abortions anyway, right?) from actually being used to pay for abortions.


Quote:
But, yeah, it's not noteworthy on the GOP docket Smiley: laugh


Nope. It's really not. But it's right at the top of every liberal pundit's list of "things we'll scare voters about". Which leads to people having false assumptions about conservative positions on many issues, and then having people be surprised when one day they see something that appears to contradict what they've been told all along (like the story in the OP). But don't let a little thing like truth or facts get in the way of a good bit of rhetoric!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#119 Oct 31 2011 at 9:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
All great examples of what I'm talking about.

Yeah, I guess your strawman was a great way of ignoring the incremental job of conservative social engineering.
Quote:
But don't let a little thing like truth or facts get in the way of a good bit of rhetoric!

Better to use overblown rhetoric to obscure and hide the facts and truth! Smiley: laugh


Ah, you... always such a great tool.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#120 Nov 01 2011 at 12:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Do you not watch any of these conservative debates? Abortion and birth control and gay marriage are pretty frequent topics.

Quote:
Show me were it became illegal to teach anything but abstinence in schools, rather than simply making it an option.


It wasn't illegal, but the government FUNDED the abstinence sex ed programs, to the point where they paid states bonuses if they only taught abstinence. There were several states that refused it, if not at first than after a couple years when they saw their teen pregnancy rates rise. But by and large, most of the states took the extra cash.
#121 Nov 01 2011 at 12:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Actually, they simply made districts ineligible for grant money if they taught anything besides straight abstinence.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#122 Nov 01 2011 at 1:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Here's the important shit the GOP House is voting on today.

Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#123 Nov 01 2011 at 1:52 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Recognizing "In God We Trust" is important, or the terrorists will win.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#124 Nov 01 2011 at 3:03 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Wonder Gem PigtailsOfDoom wrote:
Do you not watch any of these conservative debates? Abortion and birth control and gay marriage are pretty frequent topics.


When I can, sure. You do realize that the topics discussed are generated by whomever is holding the debate, and not the candidates themselves, right? How often the subject comes up has nothing to do with how important the issue really is to the candidates.

Um... But that having been said, economic issues seem to dominate most debates, followed usually by foreign policy. I'll admit to not having watched all of the debates, but I don't recall much if any discussion of abortion, and the extent of gay marriage discussion I've seen was like a show of hands type thing (which I hate btw since that's not really a "debate").


Maybe you've just been watching a completely different set?

Quote:
Quote:
Show me were it became illegal to teach anything but abstinence in schools, rather than simply making it an option.


It wasn't illegal, but the government FUNDED the abstinence sex ed programs, to the point where they paid states bonuses if they only taught abstinence.


Sigh. You do realize that "abstinence only" is just a name for a curriculum set, right? If a school district accepts funds for abstinence only education, that does not preclude them from accepting funds for contraceptive based education as well. It's just a name. You choose which sets of curriculum you're going to teach at any given school and if there are grants available, you can apply for them.


Quote:
There were several states that refused it, if not at first than after a couple years when they saw their teen pregnancy rates rise. But by and large, most of the states took the extra cash.



It's a choice though. It's not like the funding for teaching other sex education sections was eliminated during the same time period. Remove the specifics (and your own bias), and you'll see that we have two competing ideas about how to provide sex education. If the government provides school districts funding for teaching one, but not the other, then they are meddling with the schools choice and biasing the teaching in a given direction. If they provide funding for either, then the schools get to make an unbiased choice.


So once again, the situation is the exact opposite of what those on the left claim. It wasn't that the right used the government to force their views in some way, but that the left was already using the government to do so, and the right fought to even the playing field.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#125 Nov 01 2011 at 3:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts


/shrug

I've already said that I don't agree with those phrases when they are mandated by act of congress. However, in the real world, this has been around since the mid 50s, has been ruled constitutional by several supreme courts, and has been re-affirmed by congress regularly since then. Congress votes on hundreds of such administrative laws every single session. It's not like they expended a ton of effort on this one.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#126 Nov 01 2011 at 3:18 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
You do realize that "abstinence only" is just a name for a curriculum set, right? If a school district accepts funds for abstinence only education, that does not preclude them from accepting funds for contraceptive based education as well.
Actually under §510, to gain funding for Abstinence Only programs they were prohibited from teaching about contraceptive except to discuss their failure rates. In fact, in 2007 the latest grant announcement also required states to provide assurance that funded programs and curricula “do not promote contraception and/or condom use.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 230 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (230)