Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:Again, many pregnancies result from protected sex.  


They drop out of college, they can't get a job, how exactly are they supposed to provide for their child again?  And of course take care of their child at the same time (which can be very expensive).  You can't leave a baby at home alone.  


It may not be legal, but parents still do it.  (Especially step-parents, when no birth-parents are available).

 Once again, it comes down to personal responsibility and personal choices.  Want to go to college and perhaps make a good future for yourself?  Then don't "ho around".

 

If protected sex results in a pregnancy, well then if the people involved were "adult" enough to engage in the act, then the people involved should be "adult" enough to deal with the consequences.

Quote: Once again, it comes down to personal responsibility and personal choices.  Want to go to college and perhaps make a good future for yourself?  Then don't "ho around".

 

If protected sex results in a pregnancy, well then if the people involved were "adult" enough to engage in the act, then the people involved should be "adult" enough to deal with the consequences.

But they are dealing with the consequences.  By having an abortion.  It just happens to be one that you disagree with.

Quote:Not my analogy, but it's one I can sympathize with. Like I've said on a personal level I hate all abortions for any reason, I've stood in the protest, held signs on the highways, donated to pro-life charities, and even offered to adopt a child to convince a mother we new not to abort her baby (ultimately she went through with the abortion, haven't spoken to her sense), but on a legal level, it should default to the states.


Now if you want me to subsidize everyone's sexual activity that's not going to happen either, it's not like birth control is impossible to get today anyways. Condoms are already free at many health clinics but that's not your point. You want me to compromise on a financial stand against subsidizing lifestyle choices for a social and moral issue I find reprehensible.

If "subsidizing" sexual activity means less abortions, doesn't it make sense? You're already paying money to pro life causes. Allowing a portion of the taxes you already pay to decrease the number of abortions would seem to be something you would support.

Quote:Did you forget what you are arguing for? or did I say that too fast........

It must be nice to live in a world where you have it all figured out while ignoring all the exceptions of such an asinine statement.

Quote:If "subsidizing" sexual activity means less abortions, doesn't it make sense? You're already paying money to pro life causes. Allowing a portion of the taxes you already pay to decrease the number of abortions would seem to be something you would support.

 

Not at all, when I donate to charities I do it by free will, I stand for free will if nothing else! Anytime something is government subsidized no matter how noble the cause it is done under the threat of force at the end of a government gun.

 

How in good conscience advocate ending welfare subsidize and then cry for the government to fund contraception because I don't like what some people do when they get pregnant?

 

A better solution is to let the services stand on their own, I'll support charities that reach out to hurting women in need like Alpha and Omega that give women a real choice and real options, but I won't force someone else to fund those charities or government subsidizing lifestyle choices to appease my morals. 

 

government is never the answer. 

Quote:It must be nice to live in a world where you have it all figured out while ignoring all the exceptions of such an asinine statement.

It must also be nice to live in your world where there is no consequence to one's actions. Someone else should be held responsible. It's the liberal way.

While I understand your desire to engage people unsure about whether to have one, you argue against allowing tax dollars to provide free birth control even though it is proven to decrease these abortions you feel so strongly against people having.

Quote:It must also be nice to live in your world where there is no consequence to one's actions. Someone else should be held responsible. It's the liberal way.

I never implied that. But there's that dirty word again. Whether it applies or not. Of course no conservative ever aborted a child since they are inherently responsible, so..

don't let the "discussion" become personal attacking.

Quote:While I understand your desire to engage people unsure about whether to have one, you argue against allowing tax dollars to provide free birth control even though it is proven to decrease these abortions you feel so strongly against people having.

 

Yes because once again I do not advocate using government to enforce my morals or anyone else's morals. It's not governments role, at least not at the federal level. If individual communities come together and say we don't want abortions in our town and as a counter we will provide free birth control than fine.  

I believe from a government perspective, it is less about morality and more about the social impact of having fewer abortions due to fewer unwanted pregnancies. While the pro-life side may not like that some tax dollars go to birth control, they reap the benefit of fewer abortions. In a perfect world there would be no unwanted pregnancies, but people of all ages and backgrounds have them.

Quote:I believe from a government perspective, it is less about morality and more about the social impact of having fewer abortions due to fewer unwanted pregnancies. While the pro-life side may not like that some tax dollars go to birth control, they reap the benefit of fewer abortions. In a perfect world there would be no unwanted pregnancies, but people of all ages and backgrounds have them.

Without going into the religious debate here, there are those who believe that birth control is something that is considered unacceptable.  It's interesting that a liberal would want to fund birth control, but they fight tooth and nail to prevent funding for the one proven method to avoid pregnancies, STDs, and other unwanted implications.  You know, the other A word....abstinence. 

Quote:Without going into the religious debate here, there are those who believe that birth control is something that is considered unacceptable.  It's interesting that a liberal would want to fund birth control, but they fight tooth and nail to prevent funding for the one proven method to avoid pregnancies, STDs, and other unwanted implications.  You know, the other A word....abstinence. 

Most liberals fight abstinence-only education.  Not the idea of abstinence itself.  

Abstinence is a pipe dream. What percentage of brides who wear white on their wedding day are virgins? 73% of women who have abortions in the US also have a religious affiliation which calls premarital sex a sin. Hormones, peer pressure and desire have been winning that battle for as long as I have been alive. Sex Ed in high school preaches abstinence as the only 100% effective way to avoid pregnancy and STDs. Churches reinforce this idea. What more do you want? Chastity belts?

The facts show birth control means less abortions.

Quote:Yes because once again I do not advocate using government to enforce my morals or anyone else's morals. It's not governments role, at least not at the federal level. If individual communities come together and say we don't want abortions in our town and as a counter we will provide free birth control than fine.  

 

I don't think you've thought that one all the way through. You do support government enforcing your morals because permissiveness is just as much an enforcement as restriction. For instance, you support the government allowing the personal use of drugs. That's is an enforcement of your morals against Oklahomie's. Just because the end result is allowance doesn't mean it's not enforcing a set of morals. Government does not exist in a vacuum, and even having no say is a form of having a say.

I think the part that's being missed here is that funding birth control through taxes really isn't necessary. The cost of prophylactics is so reasonable at the retail level that even the poorest people in America can scrape together the quarter needed to buy a condom. The whole Sandra Fluke kerfuffle was about subsidizing $9 per month for the pill. Add it to the Medicaid benefits for those means tested to need the assistance, but for most people it really is a matter of taking the personal responsibility to prevent the need for an abortion. Of course, the left will never ever ever admit that the whole abortion industry is their cash cow though. Profiteering on the death of the innocents in primarily minority races, I guess projection really isn't just the shining of an image on the wall.

Quote:I don't think you've thought that one all the way through. You do support government enforcing your morals because permissiveness is just as much an enforcement as restriction. For instance, you support the government allowing the personal use of drugs. That's is an enforcement of your morals against Oklahomie's. Just because the end result is allowance doesn't mean it's not enforcing a set of morals. Government does not exist in a vacuum, and even having no say is a form of having a say.

Legislation preventing an act is one thing, for example when the government eventually repeals roe vs wade on the grounds that the issue is a state issue according to the 10th amendment, individual states will decide what is protecting life and what is protecting woman's privacy. I'll fight like hell to push the Florida legislator that all abortion is unlawful taking of a life. However it's not a federal issue and there's no authority permitted to the federal government to over see any abortion laws UNLESS the Supreme Court unilaterally ruled that the fetus is a legal life which there stands no chance of them every doing that.


As for permissive action vs restrictive action they're not at all the same. You used the example of narcotics so I'll stick with that for now, my feelings or anyone else's feelings on narcotic use is a moot point. I'm against all narcotic laws on the ground than individual can consume whatever the choose but the consequences are up to them. I acknowledge narcotic laws could not be lifted without simultaneously ending on federal welfare funding. That's not the same as enforcing a set of morals it's allowing people to make their own choice versus government making the choice for you.

Quote: I'm against all narcotic laws on the ground than individual can consume whatever the choose but the consequences are up to them.

 

This is a statement of your morals. If you win then your morals are enforced through a lack of government action, while Homie's would be enforced through a government action. I'm not opposed to your position, but one set of morals will be enforced one way or the other. Those who honestly believe that it's best for society if dangerous drugs are restricted from the marketplace will have their morals disregarded in favor of yours. That's all I'm saying, and it's deeply philosophical and not at all practical. Just an observation that our positions are all based on our personal morals, even if our morals demand as much liberty for the individual as possible.

Quote:I think the part that's being missed here is that funding birth control through taxes really isn't necessary. The cost of prophylactics is so reasonable at the retail level that even the poorest people in America can scrape together the quarter needed to buy a condom. The whole Sandra Fluke kerfuffle was about subsidizing $9 per month for the pill. Add it to the Medicaid benefits for those means tested to need the assistance, but for most people it really is a matter of taking the personal responsibility to prevent the need for an abortion. Of course, the left will never ever ever admit that the whole abortion industry is their cash cow though. Profiteering on the death of the innocents in primarily minority races, I guess projection really isn't just the shining of an image on the wall.

Abortion a leftist cash cow? While I cannot claim to be an expert on the economics of abortion, this seems to be a stretch. If we treat unwanted children in base terms, removing the human qualities of the argument, the cost of raising them on a societal level far exceeds whatever profits could be made from abortions. Even if you take into account racially targeting impoverished minorities who are not given a real shot at the American Dream and are profiled for placement in a "for profit" prison system.