Liberals on what is and is not a choice

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Kind of ironic...

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Kind of ironic...

Joanimaroni wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Kind of ironic...

I hate it when women have to make an agonizing decision......responsible birth control or an abortion.


Why women have abortions

1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems with either the mother or the child; and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (that is, the child is unwanted or inconvenient).

othershoe1030 wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Kind of ironic...

I hate it when women have to make an agonizing decision......responsible birth control or an abortion.


Why women have abortions

1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems with either the mother or the child; and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (that is, the child is unwanted or inconvenient).

Given those statistics it is apparent that the problem is not abortions per se but unwanted pregnancies. I wonder how many millions the pro-birth groups have put into sex education programs not counting the questionable "no sex until marriage" idea?

If they were REALLY against abortions you'd think they could notice the reason for so many?  Fewer unwanted pregnancies = fewer abortions. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure might be something for them to consider? But this will never happen because it would take away one of their main wedge issues that help get their supporters to the polls.

othershoe1030 wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Kind of ironic...

I hate it when women have to make an agonizing decision......responsible birth control or an abortion.


Why women have abortions

1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems with either the mother or the child; and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (that is, the child is unwanted or inconvenient).

Given those statistics it is apparent that the problem is not abortions per se but unwanted pregnancies. I wonder how many millions the pro-birth groups have put into sex education programs not counting the questionable "no sex until marriage" idea?

If they were REALLY against abortions you'd think they could notice the reason for so many?  Fewer unwanted pregnancies = fewer abortions. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure might be something for them to consider? But this will never happen because it would take away one of their main wedge issues that help get their supporters to the polls.

othershoe1030 wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Kind of ironic...

I hate it when women have to make an agonizing decision......responsible birth control or an abortion.


Why women have abortions

1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems with either the mother or the child; and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (that is, the child is unwanted or inconvenient).

Given those statistics it is apparent that the problem is not abortions per se but unwanted pregnancies. I wonder how many millions the pro-birth groups have put into sex education programs not counting the questionable "no sex until marriage" idea?

If they were REALLY against abortions you'd think they could notice the reason for so many?  Fewer unwanted pregnancies = fewer abortions. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure might be something for them to consider? But this will never happen because it would take away one of their main wedge issues that help get their supporters to the polls.

Joanimaroni wrote:Who Has Abortions

18% of U.S. women obtaining abortions are teenagers; those aged 15–17 obtain 6% of all abortions, teens aged 18–19 obtain 11%, and teens younger than age 15 obtain 0.4%.
Women in their 20s account for more than half of all abortions; women aged 20–24 obtain 33% of all abortions, and women aged 25–29 obtain 24%.
Women who have never married and are not cohabiting account for 45% of all abortions.
About 61% of abortions are obtained by women who have one or more children.
42% percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level ($10,830 for a single woman with no children).
27% of women obtaining abortions have incomes between 100–199% of the federal poverty level.
Read more: Abortion in the United States | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904509.html#ixzz2kYTFUhNG

bizguy wrote:But this will never happen because it would take away one of their main wedge issues that help get their supporters to the polls.


Are you accusing republicans of wanting more unwanted pregnancies and hence more abortions so they will have a campaign issue?  Just trying to understand your point.

othershoe1030 wrote:

bizguy wrote:But this will never happen because it would take away one of their main wedge issues that help get their supporters to the polls.


Are you accusing republicans of wanting more unwanted pregnancies and hence more abortions so they will have a campaign issue?  Just trying to understand your point.

I'm totally cynical when it comes to the Republicans motives but not to the point where I'd state it the way you did. They really don't need MORE abortions to make an issue of it. If there were only ONE in the entire country that would likely be enough for them to want to make the most political hay out of it.

I'm just saying that they use the emotions surrounding this issue every chance they get. There is nothing worse than an unmotivated electorate; they don't get to the polls, so they keep the fires burning. I think they need to put an effort into reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies rather than screaming about what happens after the horse is out of the barn.

othershoe1030 wrote:

bizguy wrote:But this will never happen because it would take away one of their main wedge issues that help get their supporters to the polls.


Are you accusing republicans of wanting more unwanted pregnancies and hence more abortions so they will have a campaign issue?  Just trying to understand your point.

I'm totally cynical when it comes to the Republicans motives but not to the point where I'd state it the way you did. They really don't need MORE abortions to make an issue of it. If there were only ONE in the entire country that would likely be enough for them to want to make the most political hay out of it.

I'm just saying that they use the emotions surrounding this issue every chance they get. There is nothing worse than an unmotivated electorate; they don't get to the polls, so they keep the fires burning. I think they need to put an effort into reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies rather than screaming about what happens after the horse is out of the barn.

Joanimaroni wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Kind of ironic...

I hate it when women have to make an agonizing decision......responsible birth control or an abortion.


Why women have abortions

1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems with either the mother or the child; and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (that is, the child is unwanted or inconvenient).

Given those statistics it is apparent that the problem is not abortions per se but unwanted pregnancies. I wonder how many millions the pro-birth groups have put into sex education programs not counting the questionable "no sex until marriage" idea?

If they were REALLY against abortions you'd think they could notice the reason for so many?  Fewer unwanted pregnancies = fewer abortions. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure might be something for them to consider? But this will never happen because it would take away one of their main wedge issues that help get their supporters to the polls.

7/1/2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2013 Sex Education Legislation
State Laws on Medical Accuracy in Sex Education
Additional Resources
CONTACT
Health Program

All states are somehow involved in sex education for public schoolchildren.
As of March 2013:
22 states and the District of Columbia require public schools teach sex education (20 of which mandate sex education and HIV education).
33 states and the District of Columbia require students receive instruction about HIV/AIDS.
19 states require that if provided, sex education must be medically, factually or technically accurate. State definitions of “medically accurate" vary, from requiring that the department of health review curriculum for accuracy, to mandating that curriculum be based on information from “published authorities upon which medical professionals rely.”
Many states define parents’ rights concerning sexual education:
37 states and the District of Columbia require school districts to allow parental involvement in sexual education programs.
Three states require parental consent before a child can receive instruction.
35 states and the District of Columbia allow parents to opt-out on behalf of their children.

CarlSagan wrote: Can you not recognize the inherent hypocrisy, here?

othershoe1030 wrote:Markle and PD you are both total hypocrites of the highest order when you claim such BS as liberals not wanting to protect the weak.

You know perfectly well that it is your right wing wish that programs to help the disadvantaged poor, weak people be cut, cut, cut and cut again. You'd like to cut spending on education, food stamps, subsidized housing etc.

You are NOT PRO-LIFE, you are only pro-birth. After that little guy, you are on your own, good luck and don't let the door hit you on your way out.

Markle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:Markle and PD you are both total hypocrites of the highest order when you claim such BS as liberals not wanting to protect the weak.

You know perfectly well that it is your right wing wish that programs to help the disadvantaged poor, weak people be cut, cut, cut and cut again. You'd like to cut spending on education, food stamps, subsidized housing etc.

You are NOT PRO-LIFE, you are only pro-birth. After that little guy, you are on your own, good luck and don't let the door hit you on your way out.

Birth control is available to anyone who wants it for free.  

Yes, all those things need to be cut and can be done by putting more people to work.  As you well know, that is the opposite of what are the policies of the Progressives and President Barack Hussein Obama.

Wasn't it President William Jefferson Clinton who signed the Welfare Reform Act of 1996?  That was the law which allowed millions of people to move from the welfare rolls and tax recipients to the pay rolls and being tax payers.  That also restored their self esteem, pride and very soul.

As you also know, President Barack Hussein Obama negated that law when he signed his failed Stimulus Plan.  That encouraged states to put more people on welfare.

stormwatch89 wrote:The stereotyping of Republicans being pro-life is oversimplification, in my opinion.

Yes, I like many, vote Republican for numerous reasons, but pro-life issues is certainly not one of them.

Many of us believe in allowing people the right to choose what is correct for them without government intervention of any sort.

Even more of us believe that we all have a duty to do the best we can which includes attempting to support ourselves without relying on the government.

That's where too many liberals FAIL.

othershoe1030 wrote:

Markle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:Markle and PD you are both total hypocrites of the highest order when you claim such BS as liberals not wanting to protect the weak.

You know perfectly well that it is your right wing wish that programs to help the disadvantaged poor, weak people be cut, cut, cut and cut again. You'd like to cut spending on education, food stamps, subsidized housing etc.

You are NOT PRO-LIFE, you are only pro-birth. After that little guy, you are on your own, good luck and don't let the door hit you on your way out.

Birth control is available to anyone who wants it for free.  

Yes, all those things need to be cut and can be done by putting more people to work.  As you well know, that is the opposite of what are the policies of the Progressives and President Barack Hussein Obama.

Wasn't it President William Jefferson Clinton who signed the Welfare Reform Act of 1996?  That was the law which allowed millions of people to move from the welfare rolls and tax recipients to the pay rolls and being tax payers.  That also restored their self esteem, pride and very soul.

As you also know, President Barack Hussein Obama negated that law when he signed his failed Stimulus Plan.  That encouraged states to put more people on welfare.

It would be so very refreshing if, at least occasionally, you could stick to the topic being discussed.

As to your comment on the availability of birth control I'm not at all sure that is the case, that it is there for free. Do you have any documentation along those lines? I hear complaints from companies who don't want to include birth control pills as part of their employees health coverage so there must be a cost involved. Just wondering. Also, and just as important, a person has to learn about birth control in order to take advantage of it. It is not enough for it to just be out there; it has to be used.

othershoe1030 wrote:

Markle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:Markle and PD you are both total hypocrites of the highest order when you claim such BS as liberals not wanting to protect the weak.

You know perfectly well that it is your right wing wish that programs to help the disadvantaged poor, weak people be cut, cut, cut and cut again. You'd like to cut spending on education, food stamps, subsidized housing etc.

You are NOT PRO-LIFE, you are only pro-birth. After that little guy, you are on your own, good luck and don't let the door hit you on your way out.

Birth control is available to anyone who wants it for free.  

Yes, all those things need to be cut and can be done by putting more people to work.  As you well know, that is the opposite of what are the policies of the Progressives and President Barack Hussein Obama.

Wasn't it President William Jefferson Clinton who signed the Welfare Reform Act of 1996?  That was the law which allowed millions of people to move from the welfare rolls and tax recipients to the pay rolls and being tax payers.  That also restored their self esteem, pride and very soul.

As you also know, President Barack Hussein Obama negated that law when he signed his failed Stimulus Plan.  That encouraged states to put more people on welfare.

It would be so very refreshing if, at least occasionally, you could stick to the topic being discussed.

As to your comment on the availability of birth control I'm not at all sure that is the case, that it is there for free. Do you have any documentation along those lines? I hear complaints from companies who don't want to include birth control pills as part of their employees health coverage so there must be a cost involved. Just wondering. Also, and just as important, a person has to learn about birth control in order to take advantage of it. It is not enough for it to just be out there; it has to be used.