Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 11:40 AM:
How do conservatives stand and federal subsidies for abortion alternatives?
And what about if the that pregnant mother was an illegal immigrant?
Replies (105)
What do you mean by 'abortion alternatives'? There is only one alternative to abortion - birth.
Federal subsidies for birth? We provide health care services for the poor, and that includes birth. We provide education and health care to poor children. We provide adoption services to mothers looking to allow their children to be adopted. To the best of my knowledge, most conservatives do not oppose these things, though they support limits and prevention of abuse.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 11:54 AM
What do you mean by 'abortion alternatives'? There is only one alternative to abortion - birth.
Federal subsidies for birth? We provide health care services for the poor, and that includes birth. We provide education and health care to poor children. We provide adoption services to mothers looking to allow their children to be adopted. To the best of my knowledge, most conservatives do not oppose these things, though they support limits and prevention of abuse.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 11:54 AM
Abortion Alternatives:
Its more than just birth.
Prenatal Care, Counseling, Educational counselors for teenage mothers, Adoption assistance, Baby Necessities (clothing and diapers), birth and parenting classes, etc, childcare.
For the record, I do not agree with abortion and would support federal funding of these services.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:01 PM
From a fiscal conservative point of view there is no need for government involvement since the infant is worth more on the adoption market than the costs associated with being pregnant. Thus free market has already resolved the problem.
Couples who desire infants are willing to easily pay 10k-20k to women who are suffering from unwanted pregnancies.
-- Posted by Nil on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:11 PM
That is not true. Those costs go to the adoption agency, not the mother.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:17 PM
"Prenatal Care, Counseling, Educational counselors for teenage mothers, Adoption assistance, Baby Necessities (clothing and diapers), birth and parenting classes, etc, childcare."
Those are not alternatives to abortion. Regarding abortion, there are two choices: abort or don't abort.
Those are costs associated with childbirth, which is a differnt thing.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:18 PM
"Prenatal Care, Counseling, Educational counselors for teenage mothers, Adoption assistance, Baby Necessities (clothing and diapers), birth and parenting classes, etc, childcare."
Those are not alternatives to abortion. Regarding abortion, there are two choices: abort or don't abort.
Those are costs associated with childbirth, which is a differnt thing.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:18 PM
Huh....
I am sorry, but you lost he here.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:21 PM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:18 PM
So yes, it is alternatives to abortion.
A girl is 16 and pregnant.
Do you want to graduate high school, or have a baby?
I mean if we encourage her to not abort, we should at least provide direction and assistance with that baby we demand she doesn't abort.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:25 PM
"I am sorry, but you lost he here."
It's quite simple: Dictionary.com defines 'alternative' as: a choice limited to one of two or more possibilities, as of things, propositions, or courses of action, the selection of which precludes any other possibility.
Thus, the alternative open to a person considering abortion is not to have an abortion, plain and simple.
Now, if one chooses not to have an abortion, there are considerations, which you have listed. But those considerations, in and of themselves, are not alternatives to abortion.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:33 PM
I mean if we encourage her to not abort, we should at least provide direction and assistance with that baby we demand she doesn't abort. -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:25 PM
How about we shut our mouths about her options and let her decide - more liberal oversight. Let her decide and let her pay within the law (get it?) and keep people like you from encouraging her either way?
If she wants an abortion and does it legally then let her pay. If she wants to keep the child then let her pay. There are countless non-government charities and support groups to help her with HER decision.
I know, that's against the liberal viewpoint.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:35 PM
Whether or not there is a moral obligation to support the children of poor people or assist them in child-birth, adoption, and/or child raising is an issue of its own right, and is totally independent of the question of abortion. abortion is the killing of an unborn baby. The alternative to abortion is not killing an unborn baby.
If abortion is wrong, it is wrong. The consequences of pregnancy not withstanding.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:42 PM
Why do we have to pick up any expenses for that 16 year old girl who is pregnant? Let her parents pay her expenses, it will give them an incentive to teach her little sister to keep her knees together.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:49 PM
Those are not alternatives to abortion. Regarding abortion, there are two choices: abort or don't abort.
Those are costs associated with childbirth, which is a differnt thing.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:18 PM
Actually they are. Those are the consequences of not aborting.
You seem to think women are choosing to abort because they simply want to. No. They are choosing to abort because of the consequences of having a baby.
Your right. Its about alternatives. But your alternative is a bit naive. For you is a choice of abort, not abort. To them, their choice is far more impactful.
They choose to finish high school. They choose to finish college. They choose to abort because
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:56 PM
I mean if we encourage her to not abort, we should at least provide direction and assistance with that baby we demand she doesn't abort. -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:25 PM
How about we shut our mouths about her options and let her decide - more liberal oversight. Let her decide and let her pay within the law (get it?) and keep people like you from encouraging her either way?
If she wants an abortion and does it legally then let her pay. If she wants to keep the child then let her pay. There are countless non-government charities and support groups to help her with HER decision.
I know, that's against the liberal viewpoint.
-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:35 P
In away, I agree with your logic here.
Just curious though, how is banning abortion liberal oversight?
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:57 PM
They choose to finish high school. They choose to finish college. They choose to abort because -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:56 PM
New flash - many young, pregnant women finish high school and college. Now having a baby is equal to aborting school? You're making things up.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:58 PM
Whether or not there is a moral obligation to support the children of poor people or assist them in child-birth, adoption, and/or child raising is an issue of its own right, and is totally independent of the question of abortion. abortion is the killing of an unborn baby. The alternative to abortion is not killing an unborn baby.
If abortion is wrong, it is wrong. The consequences of pregnancy not withstanding.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:42 PM
Except its not.
For a majority of people, its not simply black and white.
I think in reality, most girls don't like the idea of abortion, and are morally opposed to it. But simply see that as their only real option.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 1:01 PM
Why do we have to pick up any expenses for that 16 year old girl who is pregnant? Let her parents pay her expenses, it will give them an incentive to teach her little sister to keep her knees together.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:49 P
You are assuming their is always parents.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 1:01 PM
New flash - many young, pregnant women finish high school and college. Now having a baby is equal to aborting school? You're making things up.
-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:58 PM
You are accusing me of making things up? Talk about Pot, kettle, black.
Yes, many do finish school and college.
Who said it is equal to that? So there are two things going on here. 1) You are just being and jerk, or 2) You actually naive enough to believe that. I tend to beleive its #1.
I have been civil, and actually am enjoying discussing this with people. But for some reason, you seem to have issues with civility.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 1:05 PM
You are assuming their is always parents.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 1:01 PM
16 year olds at one time had two parents and in most cases still do. Yes tragedy strikes but I doubt there are that many 16 year old girls that are not wards of some semblence of parents, and if she is the daughter of a single mother and a deadbeat dad, beat it out of the deadbeat dad rather than the innocent taxpayer. I am for personal responsibility, not government and taxpayer responsibility.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 1:22 PM
Let's go back to adoption and what Nil said. There are many couples that want to adopt and are willing to pay the mother for all her expenses. Is this a problem?
-- Posted by dchannes on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 1:44 PM
Let's go back to adoption and what Nil said. There are many couples that want to adopt and are willing to pay the mother for all her expenses. Is this a problem?
-- Posted by dchannes on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 1:44 PM
Expenses, yes. Compensation, no.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 1:52 PM
16 year olds at one time had two parents and in most cases still do. Yes tragedy strikes but I doubt there are that many 16 year old girls that are not wards of some semblence of parents, and if she is the daughter of a single mother and a deadbeat dad, beat it out of the deadbeat dad rather than the innocent taxpayer. I am for personal responsibility, not government and taxpayer responsibility.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 1:22 PM
That is the problem. If the 16 year old lives at home, I agree with you.
But that isn't always the case.
I believe that is why there should be counselors to intervene and help explain the option instead of abortion being the default choice.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 1:59 PM
"You seem to think women are choosing to abort because they simply want to. No. They are choosing to abort because of the consequences of having a baby.
"Your right. Its about alternatives. But your alternative is a bit naive. For you is a choice of abort, not abort. To them, their choice is far more impactful."
I don't pretend to know why people choose abortion. Nothing in my posts say anything about why they choose the alternative they choose. I'm not sure how you have drawn that conclusion from my posts.
'My alternative' is not naive. It's about the definition of 'alternative'. You are confusing alternatives with consequences of choosing alternatives. Again, the alternative to abortion is non-abortion, that's pretty cut-and-dried. I said nothing about the 'impactfulness' of that alternative.
There are consequences to abortion, and there are consequences to non-abortion. The best solution is to avoid the probability of pregnancy until one is ready to deal with the consequences. That, of course, is naive and also immaterial to the discussion. By the time one is faced with abortion and the alternative, it is too late to consider not getting pregnant as a viable option.
Abortion, however, can be considered an attempt to become un-pregnant. That is to say an attempt to pretend the pregnancy did not exist, to pretend the life created inside is not alive, and to deny the reality of one's situation. That, in my view, is naive.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 2:01 PM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 2:01 PM
Shapely,
First on the definition of alternative. You don't see other "alternatives" because your beleif narrows down abortion in its simplest form. Life, or no life.
But I think you hit the nail on the head when you say its naive to consider abortion becoming "unpregnant" rather than ending a life. /(I think this is really a good way of phrasing it the though process of those considering abortion by the way.)/
And I agree with your stance on that matter. However, remember that the person making that decision has a different belief system then we do. So they are making a "naive" decision as we see it. If it was you or I making the choice, it would be an easy decision.
To them, its not about life of the embryo/fetus/baby. But rather, their options of having the baby.
Abortion doesn't have to be the only way to complete high school, avoid being an adult, missing college etc. So yes, to many with that frame of mind there are alternatives to abortion.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 2:59 PM
"You don't see other "alternatives" because your beleif narrows down abortion in its simplest form. Life, or no life."
I don't see how it is possible to have any other alternatives. There is no 'half-life' or other in-betweens. The child lives or the child dies, those are the alternatives.
If the child lives, there are other possibilities: the child is adopted, the child is raised by family, the child is raised by the mother, the child is neglected, etc., but those are conditional on choosing the alternative to abortion, they are not alternatives thereto in an of themselves.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 3:04 PM
"I don't see how it is possible to have any other alternatives."
But you are not the one making the decision. The person that is really deciding does not view it in the same way. To them, its not about a life. Its about lifestyles and future options. That is the point of other alternatives to abortion.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 3:11 PM
Rick,
This is the point of me starting this debate.
To be honest, I am not really sure where my loyalty lies here.
Its a grey area for me. At one end, I don't like massive wellfare or intrusion by the federal government, but I am also anti-abortion.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 3:21 PM
"But you are not the one making the decision. The person that is really deciding does not view it in the same way. To them, its not about a life. Its about lifestyles and future options. That is the point of other alternatives to abortion."
But none of that matters in terms of alternatives. Only two alternatives exist: the baby lives or the baby dies. Everything is else is dependent on choosing one or the other of those alternatives. There are no other alternatives.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 3:21 PM
"The mother is responsible for her decision, nobody else , just her . And her mate."
This is true of any decision, and yet we treat this one as if it is something unique. A person is placed in a situation that requires a choice. The person makes a choice, the person lives (or dies) with the consequence of the choice. They may ask advice. They may choose not to choose and thus let nature determine the outcome, just as a mother who chooses not to abort does in permitting nature to run its course. They may choose to let someone else choose. In any case, however, it is their choice on how to proceed, and their responsibility to live with the choice.
This can be said (except in cases of rape) of the choice that put them in the position to have to make the choice regarding abortion. By surrendering control of their body to a second person, they have created a third. Thus, having chosen surrender, they have now created a condition in which their choice impacts three persons, rather than just themselves.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 3:31 PM
But none of that matters in terms of alternatives. Only two alternatives exist: the baby lives or the baby dies. Everything is else is dependent on choosing one or the other of those alternatives. There are no other alternatives.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 3:21 PM
This is really just semantics.
You see abortion as life or death. but, you are not the target market.
For those considering abortion, its not about that. Otherwise, they wouldn't be considering it. It might be to avoid the stigma or teenage pregnancy. It might be a choice to graduate high school. Their choice isn't about life or death. Abortion alternatives are about finishing school AND having the baby. Having the baby AND going to college.
I get for you it's simply one options. But not everybody views it that way.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 3:35 PM
"Abortion alternatives are about finishing school AND having the baby. Having the baby AND going to college."
Again, those are not exclusive, thus they are not alternatives. One can have a baby AND go to college. One can have an abortion AND not got to college. College is not dependent upon either decision. Ergo, going to college is not an alternative to abortion.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 3:45 PM
That is not true. Those costs go to the adoption agency, not the mother.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:17 PM
My sister in law paid the mother to have the baby along with all expenses. It is true.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 3:47 PM
Do you want to graduate high school, or have a baby? -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:25 PM
Who said it is equal to that? You actually naive enough to believe that. I tend to beleive its #1.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 1:05 PM
======================
In your post above you said "Do you want to graduate high school or have a baby?" as if they could do one OR the other - your words not mine.
I said they could have a baby and finish high school or college. Reread your own words.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 3:55 PM
We Regret To Inform U
Nil
______________
I am only telling you how things legally state.
A mother cannot be paid to have a kid. I am not saying it doesn't happen and I am not saying there are ways around it.
I am simply telling you that right now it isn't legal.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 3:58 PM
"The free market can clearly best handle the infant adoption without any extra government involvement."
Now, I'm no fan of government involvement, but some governmental oversight of the adoption process is needed. Sans oversight, the market could evolve into human trafficing or worse. Not that it can't happen _with- oversight.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 4:05 PM
A mother cannot be paid to have a kid. I am not saying it doesn't happen and I am not saying there are ways around it.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 3:58 PM
It was completely legal.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 8:42 PM
Mothers DO get paid. It is common knowledge.
Another thing...we are not talking about drowning unwanted kittens here! But somehow, people are able to convince themselves that the baby is not a life until it draws a breath. Just because those people are ignorant doesn't change the choice at hand.
The cold fact is...it's either thumbs up, or thumbs down.
And Regret, it not only "was" legal, it IS legal in many states to pay the mother or give her a gift...and you don't have to "do it under the table".
-- Posted by dchannes on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 12:08 AM
Michelle Obama LOBBIED to allow abortionists to drive forceps into the back of unborn babies' skulls, suck out their brains, wait for their skulls to collapse, and then pull them out of the birth canal:
-- Posted by bbollmann on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 7:14 AM
Barack Obama - to this day - supports abortion at any stage and for any reason. He is a huge backer of partial-birth abortion. Sick.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 9:06 AM
Rational.Thought
I dis-agree .
It is not up to you to decide any of these things or options for anyone -- especially a woman with child .
Each and every one of us are different , there is no one size fits all , there is either pregnant or not pregnant .
There is no such thing as almost pregnant , "what can I do ?"...
-- Posted by .Rick. on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 4:17 PM
And I am not disputing any of that.
I am just wondering at what point does the government support end.
For instance, should we eliminate WIC (Which I don't think).
I also think there should be councilors available that can help a 16 year old girl understand the consequences and benefits of all of her options.
I remember a sociology course once that talked about how more girls than boys will research questions to issues they are having, but unfortunately. The problem is that most seek advice and information from their friend.s
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 11:44 AM
"I also think there should be councilors available that can help a 16 year old girl understand the consequences and benefits of all of her options."
There are. Inside the schools, there are counselors. Outside the school, organizations such as Birthright and Planned Parenthood (on opposite ends of the spectrum) provide counseling, free of charge. But that does not require government funds.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 12:05 PM
"I also think there should be councilors available that can help a 16 year old girl understand the consequences and benefits of all of her options."
RT, this is text from the Planned Parenthood website:
"Specially trained educators at women's health clinics -- like your Planned Parenthood health center -- can talk with you in private. Or you may bring someone with you if you wish. When choosing a clinic, beware of so-called "crisis pregnancy centers" that are run by people who are against abortion."
Notice the warning about talking to people that are against abortion, but who want to help the mother.
-- Posted by dchannes on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 12:11 PM
"I also think there should be councilors available that can help a 16 year old girl understand the consequences and benefits of all of her options."
There are. Inside the schools, there are counselors. Outside the school, organizations such as Birthright and Planned Parenthood (on opposite ends of the spectrum) provide counseling, free of charge. But that does not require government funds.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 12:05 PM
But are those services everywhere?
And technically, the school councilor would still be considered government funded. But I am not sure I am comfortable relying on them.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 12:40 PM
"I also think there should be councilors available that can help a 16 year old girl understand the consequences and benefits of all of her options."
RT, this is text from the Planned Parenthood website:
"Specially trained educators at women's health clinics -- like your Planned Parenthood health center -- can talk with you in private. Or you may bring someone with you if you wish. When choosing a clinic, beware of so-called "crisis pregnancy centers" that are run by people who are against abortion."
Notice the warning about talking to people that are against abortion, but who want to help the mother.
-- Posted by dchannes on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 12:11 PM
But are these services available everywhere?
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 12:42 PM
The majority of your debate , to me , is based on post birth , or after the fact . I would like to see the link which proves with-out a doubt a female with child uses their friends as a barometer of their final decision .
Once again , any Programs are to assist any female regarding her Personal decision , not determine her Personal decision .
These Programs definitely do not relieve any responsibilty the female has onus to for having a baby .
It has nothing to do with any Government of any kind , this is a personal affair , not a Government , or public , affair .
In the end , none of these decisions were made by an unborn infant who lives or dies by the ultimate decision .
-- Posted by .Rick. on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 12:39 PM
Its a wide open discussion, but yes, part of what I am not sure about is the post-birth support.
How much care should the government be responsible for? I am not sure where that line is drawn.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 12:47 PM
On this thread, it might be inteseting to delete all posts made males, then see what's left.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 1:12 PM
For the 3rd time , no Government of any kind is responsible for a mother's , or father's for that matter , personal decisions .
If so , the Government could decide who can reproduce and who can not .
This is a path America definitely does not want to take .
It has failed miserably in China , why can't America ever learn from other's mistakes ??
-- Posted by .Rick. on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 1:22 PM
Again, I am not saying anything about the decision.
What I was talking about is if the girl chooses to have the baby, what responsibility does the government have for the child? Medical Care? Nutrition? Social Services? Or does the 16 year old not get provided an medical care or instruction and we tell her she is on her own. What I am specifically mentioning is what is that line?
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 1:53 PM
...sigh...none of the above...
-- Posted by .Rick. on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 1:57 PM
None of the above?
So no instruction or medical care at all?
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 2:07 PM
"And technically, the school councilor would still be considered government funded. But I am not sure I am comfortable relying on them."
Technically, they are state funded, though the federal government has stuck its hand in some of those (as Mr. Obama now proposes to do).
In answer to the 'quandary' aspect of this, Conservatives generally have no problem with states spending funds on such things within their schools, but they see it as being beyond the purview of the federal government.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 2:07 PM
None of the above?
So no instruction or medical care at all?
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 2:07 PM
Sorry. Hit post too soon.
So no instruction or medical care at all? Is this because you think its a local issue (community, churches, etc.), or because she doesn't deserve any, or something else entirely?
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 2:09 PM
In answer to the 'quandary' aspect of this, Conservatives generally have no problem with states spending funds on such things within their schools, but they see it as being beyond the purview of the federal government.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 2:07 PM
I Agree with that.
However, where is the line drawn for how much help she gets?
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 2:10 PM
"But are these services available everywhere?"
Does it matter? Are you seriously suggesting that we have a responsibility to provide a counsellor in every community in which someone may get pregnant? How would one determine at what population density and in what capacity we have to provide such counsellors?
As it is, most schools have a counsellor, full time or part time, at least in this area. I do not know if that is typical throughout. Most schools over a certain size have some form of medical staff on hand, as well. I would suspect that smaller schools and private schools may have only a part-time volunteer nurse or medical responder, and staff personnel trained in medical care.
However, it is likely that anywhere abortions are provided, counselling is also available. Thus, the woman or girl seeking abortion can travel to a counsellor just as easily as she can to an abortion clinic.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 2:13 PM
Also, religious leaders in most communities have some sort of capacity as counsellor, or their church will provide counselling referrals.
My guess is, yes, counselling services are available in most areas.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 2:14 PM
Does it matter? Are you seriously suggesting that we have a responsibility to provide a counsellor in every community in which someone may get pregnant? How would one determine at what population density and in what capacity we have to provide such counsellors?
As it is, most schools have a counsellor, full time or part time, at least in this area. I do not know if that is typical throughout. Most schools over a certain size have some form of medical staff on hand, as well. I would suspect that smaller schools and private schools may have only a part-time volunteer nurse or medical responder, and staff personnel trained in medical care.
However, it is likely that anywhere abortions are provided, counselling is also available. Thus, the woman or girl seeking abortion can travel to a counsellor just as easily as she can to an abortion clinic.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 2:13 PM
I am not suggesting anything. I simply don't know. I don't think every community needs one, and I don't know an acceptable number. This is why I started the debate.
Now, it seems from the nature of the posts that most on here are male/conservative. That is fine. I still want to see everyone's opionion on the matter.
Good point on the clinic.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 2:31 PM
Rick is right. Murder is a personal decision.
-- Posted by dchannes on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 2:49 PM
What will we have next?
How and when a person must bathe.
What and how much a person may eat.
The list goes on.
-- Posted by dchannes on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 3:08 PM
Rational.Thought
To be honest , it is none of my business what other people do , they have to live with the consequences of their decisions , not me .
What I firmly object to , and will never agree to , is funding another person's personal decision , which is exactly what the Affordable Act mandates I do .
This is so wrong on so many levels , I do not know where to begin .
I do not want , in anyway , shape , or form , another person to pay for my decisions . This will only lead to others deciding what my personal decisions will be because they will claim they are paying for it....
-- Posted by .Rick. on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 3:00 PM
I agree with your sentiment.
However, I just have a hard time rationalize it in this sentiment.
The mother made a mistake. She screwed up. Put the sad thing is it is the baby and child that suffers.
While I hate the welfare state, I have a much harder time rationalizing that an innocent child deserves no protection from the government.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 3:25 PM
Rational.Thought
One question :
What did people do for 1,000's of years without "Government" ?
-- Posted by .Rick. on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 3:36 PM
I don't think that can be answered because I think there has always been some form of government.
I assume you are native american, even you ancestors functioned with a hiarchy structure.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 3:52 PM
Rational.Thought
BTW...I know at least 2 women who choose abortion , both were married .
One could never be with child again , the other a week in the hospital for excessive bleeding .
Why should I be thrown into these women's personal hell ?
What's even worse , why do I have to pay for their personal hell ?
-- Posted by .Rick. on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 3:39 PM
Unfortuanetly, I don't have those answers.
I am just trying to form my opinion on the subject.
You keep steering the discussion toward the choice. I am trying to define what happens after that choice.
What is our responsibility, as a society (private and public) to that child. Especially if its a woman who may not be best yet equipped to be a mother, either emotionally or financially.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 3:57 PM
How much care should the government be responsible for? I am not sure where that line is drawn.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 12:47 PM
If it is up to Obama and the liberals the gates will be opened wider. It is not fair that someone can make millions and not give at least one half to unwed mothers and others that made bad life decisions.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 4:21 PM
If it is up to Obama and the liberals the gates will be opened wider. It is not fair that someone can make millions and not give at least one half to unwed mothers and others that made bad life decisions.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 4:21 P
huh?
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 5:07 PM
This country (the United States of America) was often called 'the great American experiment'. We chose after the Revolutionary War to establish a country in which the people ruled themselves through a form of government in which the people elected representatives to govern the country.
To make a long story short..........it is when the people fail to govern themselves that government finds it necessary to step in and interfere with the individual lives/responsibilities of the people.
The role of government concerning abortion. If individuals controlled their passions and refrained from sex outside marriage many social problems would be resolved. That time seems to be past and the nation suffers for that reason.
Some, such as Rational Thought, think that government should step in and pay the expenses of those who refuse to be responsible for their own actions. (There are those who temporarily fall into need for reasons beyond their control. I do not refer to them. We all should agree to support orphans and widows in their time of need.)
Do we solve the root problem when we pay the price of the result of the problem without addressing the core social issue? I view abortion as the unnecessary taking of an innocent human life but I also oppose the government's infringement on individual rights. So I struggle daily with subjects such as this.
Does this issue reflect the failure of 'the great American experiment'. For, if we refuse to make the tough choices necessary to govern our individual lives; how can we truly expect to be able to make the choices necessary to govern this great nation and ensure liberty for future generations?
Laws are not necessary to control the behaviors of individuals who control their passions. Laws are necessary only to limit the actions of individuals who refuse to govern themselves.
-- Posted by Robert* on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 6:50 AM
Oh Lawdy, here we go again. The abortion argument.I'm going fishing instead (and I don't like fishing).
Is there no end to this argument?
-- Posted by voyager on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 8:43 AM
"...which is exactly what the Affordable Act mandates I do.
This is so wrong on so many levels...."
It is the first statement that is totally wrong, which ironically makes the second phrase correct.
The Affordable Care Act does not cover abortion, per this extract from a summary of the actual act:
"Sets forth special rules for abortion coverage, including: (1) permitting states to elect to prohibit abortion coverage in qualified health plans offered through an Exchange in the state; (2) prohibiting federal funds from being used for abortion services; and (3) requiring separate accounts for payments for such services. Prohibits any qualified health plan offered through an Exchange from discriminating against any individual health care provider or health care facility because of its unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions. (Sec. 1304, as modified by Sec. 10104) Sets forth definitions for terms used in this title."
So in addition to disallowing tax funds for abortion services, even the provision of birth control is not "free" or taxpayer funded. The birth control provisions are paid for by the insured individual, as part of the basic plan, not separately by the government.
So you have nothing to object to.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 10:35 AM
Actually, the contraceptive mandate covers specified abortifacients, including the drub 'Ella'.
"There are two morning-after pills, and Ella is the more harmful one, said Dr. Donna J. Harrison, director of research and public policy, American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
"Plan B, the first emergency contraceptive, probably does not cause an embryo that has already been implanted to be lost. It probably does not kill the implanted embryo," Harrison told CNSNews.com. "But, the other morning after pill, which is known as Ella, does. It definitely does. There is no question about it.
"If the embryo is implanted and you take Ella, Ella interferes with the place where the embryo is implanted. It kills the placenta and it will kill the developing embryo," Harrison continued. "Maybe not 100 percent of the time, but probably about 80 percent of the time. It depends on how big the woman is because it depends on the dosage that she takes. But Ella can cause the death of an embryo that has already implanted. Ella can cause an abortion."
"Ella is the product name for the official medicine Ulipristal.
"The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has disputed the White House assertion that the mandate doesn't cover abortion-inducing drugs in a Feb. 3 statement.
"False. The policy already requires coverage of Ulipristal (HRP 2000 or "Ella"), a drug that is a close analogue to RU-486 (mifepristone) and has the same effects. RU-486 itself is also being tested for possible use as an "emergency contraceptive" -- and if the FDA approves it for that purpose, it will automatically be mandated as well," the statement said.
"According to the FDA, "Use of ella is contraindicated during an existing or suspected pregnancy"."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 11:00 AM
"...permitting states to elect to prohibit abortion coverage"
in qualified health plans offered through an Exchange in the state;"
You may need to read the rest of the sentance.
To me that simply means that the exchange can offer a number of plans some with abortion services, some without, but none are apid for by the government.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 11:41 AM
Laws are needed to protect and ensure the well being of citizens.
-- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 11:54 AM
Sad thing is there are more and more Americans like RT that thinks the government has to bail them out of their mistakes. There used to be a phrase used "back in the day" called personal responsibility.
-- Posted by Mowrangler on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 1:51 PM
This country (the United States of America) was often called 'the great American experiment'. We chose after the Revolutionary War to establish a country in which the people ruled themselves through a form of government in which the people elected representatives to govern the country.
To make a long story short..........it is when the people fail to govern themselves that government finds it necessary to step in and interfere with the individual lives/responsibilities of the people.
The role of government concerning abortion. If individuals controlled their passions and refrained from sex outside marriage many social problems would be resolved. That time seems to be past and the nation suffers for that reason.
Some, such as Rational Thought, think that government should step in and pay the expenses of those who refuse to be responsible for their own actions. (There are those who temporarily fall into need for reasons beyond their control. I do not refer to them. We all should agree to support orphans and widows in their time of need.)
Do we solve the root problem when we pay the price of the result of the problem without addressing the core social issue? I view abortion as the unnecessary taking of an innocent human life but I also oppose the government's infringement on individual rights. So I struggle daily with subjects such as this.
Does this issue reflect the failure of 'the great American experiment'. For, if we refuse to make the tough choices necessary to govern our individual lives; how can we truly expect to be able to make the choices necessary to govern this great nation and ensure liberty for future generations?
Laws are not necessary to control the behaviors of individuals who control their passions. Laws are necessary only to limit the actions of individuals who refuse to govern themselves.
-- Posted by Robert* on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 6:50 AM
Actually, I have not said anything like that.
Please, don't put things on me you are not eligible to explain.
First off, I am against abortion. So you whole rant is simply full of crap. So how on earth did you come to the idea the government should pay for it?
Please don't participate. You are contributing nothing.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 3:53 PM
"I view abortion as the unnecessary taking of an innocent human life but I also oppose the government's infringement on individual rights. So I struggle daily with subjects such as this."
Robert*,
I understand the dilemma. For the record, I am not bothered by your participation in this thread.
-- Posted by dchannes on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 4:15 PM
I understand the dilemma. For the record, I am not bothered by your participation in this thread.
-- Posted by dchannes on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 4:15 PM
So you have no problems with people who flat out lie?
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 4:19 PM
I read Robert's post 3 times and fail to see anything wrong with it. Robert is one of our more thoughtful contributors on here and just because you do not agree with him does not mean he is wrong.
Personally I have been following this thread and could not see where any part of it was contributing to the correction of the problems we encounter in today's society. I tried early on to say there should be personal responsibility involved.
Here.... -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:49 PM
And Here.... -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 1:22 PM
I agree with Robert. Quit coddling the irresponsible and let them stew in their own juice. Worry about the responsible people who have in some way managed to find themselves in dire straits. At least with the responsible people you will not be taking on a lifetime contract.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 4:30 PM
Abortion , along with new coverage of contraceptive drugs , have been added .
-- Posted by .Rick. on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 11:59 AM
Where does it say that, Rick?
And your definition of "well being" would be...abortion ??
-- Posted by .Rick. on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 12:00 PM
For the mother, it may very well be. Why aren't you thinking about the woman here?
-- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 7:26 PM
For the record, I am not bothered by your participation in this thread.
-- Posted by dchannes on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 4:15 PM
I didn't realize you were the one in charge.
-- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 7:27 PM
-- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 7:27 PM
Who is in charge.... someone please tell me, I have seen on these threads where someone orders someone else to quit posting. Had it happen to me actually. I had to inform the wannabe hall monitor that I was a free agent and would post as it suited me, within the limitiations set by the real ownership of these threads... and that would be the SE Missourian.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 7:47 PM
Contraception and contraceptive counseling: Women will have free access to all government-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures and patient education and counseling. This does not include abortion drugs. Most workers in employer-sponsored plans are currently covered for contraceptives; however, employers with religious affiliations will not be required to pay for birth control. Rather, insurance companies providing health plans to such employers will cover the cost.
It does NOT say abortion...and neither did what you posted. Your 'woulda, coulda, shoulda' is simply false. I wish you would quit trying to persuade people with falsity.
The mother is a living, viable soul, the unborn will not survive without the mother carrying them to a certain gestational age. There is no question here except the one you are trying to paint.
-- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 7:59 PM
"Women will have free access to all government-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures and patient education and counseling."
This is all free and nobody pays for it. By golly we have reached the promised land. Bring out the free 'Bubble Up' and 'Rainbow Stew'.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 8:05 PM
You receive free stuff everyday, air, sunshine, rain etc. We educate children, we educate the elderly, why can't we also educate women on contraception so that the abortion issue won't be "an issue"?
-- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 8:08 PM
Air, sunshine & rain are a product of mother nature and are not a comparable to products that are given away that cost money.
You want to educate women on contraception that probably already know more on the subject than you do. Education is not going to solve the problem, only personal responsibility will.
High school girls knew where babies came from when I was growing up and they damned well knew how to prevent unwanted pregnancies. I do not believe the girls of today are that dumbed down. They know that it will be taken care of today, so.... be happy, don't worry!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 8:26 PM
I didn't realize you were the one in charge. -- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 7:27 PM
Who is this reasoning guy? He's rude, condescending, sarcastic and bullying.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 9:18 PM
The mother is a living, viable soul, the unborn will not survive without the mother carrying them to a certain gestational age. There is no question here except the one you are trying to paint.
-- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 7:59 PM
I beg to differ here. The unborn is nevertheless a living being and deserves that care until he/she can survive on their own. The aged parent can also be a soul that will not survive if they are not cared for lovingly by those of us they have brought into this world. By the above logic it would be OK to abort them to a trash heap at this time of life as well.
This kind of selfish thinking makes me sick to my stomach.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 9:56 PM
Wheels, I agree. On another note, something doesn't fit in the scheme of things when our elderly are put out of sight and mind relegated to a nursing home where they are encouraged to become wheel chair bound and take their medicine with supper and go to sleep.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 10:34 PM
OJ
Ever wonder why they give them acetaminophen even if they have no pain?
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 10:43 PM
Rick, Since I so rudely strayed from the subject, let me go one farther. I understand when a nursing home resident passes they are quietly taken out the back door in a plain unmarked vehicle to the funeral home. I was told that when a veteran passes at the Veteran's Home they leave, often under salute, through the front door. Can someone confirm that?
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Oct 25, 2012, at 10:49 PM
Rick,
But who is going to stop the "entitlements"?
Will Romney be that guy?
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 11:44 AM
"But who is going to stop the "entitlements"?
"Will Romney be that guy?"
No. We're still going to Hell in handbasket, but Mr. Romney is offering a slower handbasket...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 11:46 AM
No. We're still going to Hell in handbasket, but Mr. Romney is offering a slower handbasket...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 11:46 AM
That is probably a fair anology.
But how slow would the Gary Johnson handbasket be?
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:13 PM
But anyway,
Back to the issues I was first curious about.
(Please, no more abortion debate. Start your own thread about that.)
_______________________
So a baby is born. What is the government's responsibility to that baby?
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:16 PM
I would think personal responsibilty by way more Americans .
No one person will solve this issue .
From what I see , the current President encourages an Entitlement Program , not self responsibility .
But , I am wrong at least once a day tho..
-- Posted by .Rick. on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:21 PM
Agree 100%.
Except about the current president. I think every president (outside of clinton), encourages entitlements.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:23 PM
Rick,
Do you really mean none?
Unfortuanatly you still have to have some government involvement. For instance, education and child protective services.
Simply because there are many out there who simply are not capable of raising children, despite the fact they are physicly capable of hiving them.
There are people like you that think the mother should have all say in her baby. But I disagree in some respects. For instance, if that pregnant mother thinks its OK to smoke meth. In situations like that, I can't sit back and say Freedom form Intrusion.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:30 PM
-- Posted by .Rick. on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:27 PM
I see Clinton it terms of a business.
As a president, Clinton was a great CEO. But what people overlook is that Gingrich was just as great of a CFO.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:32 PM
This topic has been talked to death. What is the solution? I might die before we get to the punch line.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:34 PM
Wheels, That must be some pretty good punch to have a line that long! :)
I agree, most every facet of political argument has been hashed and rehashed here, some with no effect.
I have rehoned some of my views due to the education of these threads but basically I was right all along! ;-)
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:47 PM
BTW..our little girl Monica turned 50 years old this year ...
-- Posted by .Rick. on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:40 PM
You forgot the part about it seems just like yesterday that she was crawling around the floor in the oval office. :-)
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:55 PM
I have rehoned some of my views due to the education of these threads but basically I was right all along! ;-)
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:47 PM
Old John,
You and I must think a lot alike. :-)
I am out of here, I have got to do some work before the wife gets home.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:56 PM
Why does the public have to live and breathe Government ??
-- Posted by .Rick. on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 12:39 PM
I am just saying it has to have some limited involvement.
For instance, public eduction is for the good of the society. We need educated people to compete in a world economy. We need people who can read.
Second, government should provide some means to protect us. So we need a police force. We need fire men. We need Prosecutors.
And sometimes, the government needs to be an advocate for those that can't speak from themselves. Yes, child services may be intrusive. But unforgettably I see them as a necessary eveil becasue of the wrong choices made by others.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 1:05 PM
And sometimes, the government needs to be an advocate for those that can't speak from themselves. Yes, child services may be intrusive. But unforgettably I see them as a necessary eveil becasue of the wrong choices made by others. -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 1:05 PM
Sounds like a serious conflict of morals here?
On the one hand a pregnant woman needs services to help them. Now we're saying that children need protective services to be an "advocate for those that can't speak themselves".
Yet we are cool with abortion? Funded by the government? To take the life away from those that "can't speak for themselves"?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 1:43 PM
Sounds like a serious conflict of morals here?
On the one hand a pregnant woman needs services to help them. Now we're saying that children need protective services to be an "advocate for those that can't speak themselves".
Yet we are cool with abortion? Funded by the government? To take the life away from those that "can't speak for themselves"?
-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 1:43 PM
I do not agree with abortion, nor the government funding of it.
But I do think a society has some commitment to its children, be it a local, state or federal level.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 2:02 PM
Using this logic , why wouldn't society have some commitment to all of its people , not just the children ?
What about the infirmed ? The Elderly who have given their entire life ?
Would these people be more at ease at home with their family or ordered around by strangers ?
It's a quandry , for sure .
-- Posted by .Rick. on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 2:11 PM
Because children do not have a choice.
I also think this "blanket" should be used to protect veterans.
Should the elderly be protected? You bet. If they chose to serve their country.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 2:21 PM
Rational.Thought
The Elderly do not serve their country if they are farmers , or work in coal mines , or are in medicine ?
I am so mixfused ...
-- Posted by .Rick. on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 2:23 PM
Just my opinion....
But I think private people show make their own plans for retirement and care. The sooner the better
I think serving in the military is a 2-way street. If a person enters the service to protect his country, I think the country has an obligation to protect them. Now of course there needs to be some length of service contingents.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 2:28 PM
But mom and dad and blood do .
The Government does not .
-- Posted by .Rick. on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 2:24 PM
Exactly.
If there is no dad, and Mom decides I am going to smoke/make meth with my 4 month old daugter's in the house...
I think its the government's responsibility to make sure that the person is raised by other blood relatives.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 2:29 PM
I also think there should be councilors available that can help a 16 year old girl understand the consequences and benefits of all of her options. -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Wed, Oct 24, 2012, at 11:44 AM
I do not agree with abortion, nor the government funding of it -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 2:02 PM
Do you want to graduate high school, or have a baby? -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Tue, Oct 23, 2012, at 12:25 PM
Which is it? You don't support abortion, yet you support others choosing it? Why? You want "counselors" available to help them choose abortion or no abortion? Yet you don't support it? I think you are confused.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 8:08 PM
Get help now before it is too late.
Addictive use of the Internet resembles other so-called "process" addictions, in which a person is addicted to an activity or behavior (including gambling, shopping, or certain sexual behaviors) rather than a substance (mood-altering drugs, tobacco, food, etc.). People who develop problems with their Internet use may start off using the Internet on a casual basis and then progress to using the technology in dysfunctional ways.
People with such other mental disorders or symptoms as depression, feelings of isolation, stress , or anxiety, may "self-medicate" by using the Internet in the same way that some people use alcohol or drugs of abuse to self-medicate the symptoms of their mental disorder.
-- Posted by notrump on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 8:43 PM
-- Posted by psykhe on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 8:43 PM
Thanks for the humor. I was just thinking of getting off the internet forever and then a sock puppet posts that. I think I'll stay now - it's so entertaining.
It's the economy stupid.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 9:10 PM
"But how slow would the Gary Johnson handbasket be?"
I'm afarid we'll never have a chance to find out. The debate commission tossed in a new and unfair criteria to keep him out the debates, to keep him from being heard. Most of the populace has never heard of him, even though he is now on the ballot, to in all fifty states (I believe, though some were listed as 'pending' the last time I checked).
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Oct 27, 2012, at 7:12 AM
Which is it? You don't support abortion, yet you support others choosing it? Why? You want "counselors" available to help them choose abortion or no abortion? Yet you don't support it? I think you are confused.
-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Oct 26, 2012, at 8:08 PM
Not sure why you are confused.
I don't support abortion (rape and medical reasons aside). I don't support others who choose to do so.
I think it should be left for each state to decide to make it legal.
I don't really know if there are counselors available, but I certainly hope there are.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Mon, Oct 29, 2012, at 1:03 PM
Rational.Thought
Why not end the mixfusion and take a public vote to see if abortion is "legal" or not ??
-- Posted by .Rick. on Mon, Oct 29, 2012, at 3:34 PM
I would be fine with that.
-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Mon, Oct 29, 2012, at 3:40 PM
Menu
How do conservatives stand and federal subsidies for abortion alternatives?
And what about if the that pregnant mother was an illegal immigrant?
Replies (105)