Obama cancels abstinence education programs, and riles up everyone

[CrusaderPi]

Originally Posted by peter12

So you believe in government-funded eugenics? What a revolting argument.

I think you missed GGG's point.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by peter12

Statements like this just scream, "RULE ME!"

Absolute monarchs and dictators rule; I live in a country where we are governed.

Getting taxed is not lending the government your money; it's not giving them power of attorney to spend your money; and it's definitely not tyrannical extraction of your money. Thinking you still own that money once it is in revenue is tinfoil hat stuff - do you have a say in what happens with the money you've paid the bank for your mortgage? Do you feel you have the right to ask Toyota to use the money you spent on your car specifically on engine research? No? Then why do you think that once you've given the government money, you should have a further say in where it's spent just because it was - was, as in used to be -your money?

The right to question government - and by extension, where it spends its money - comes from citizenship and its attached democratic rights, not from how much money you give in taxes, or even whether you pay any at all. The pernicious idea that money buys you influence in what the government does is how lobbyists and corporations distort the processes of democracy; it is this that endangers our freedoms now, not government in and of itself.

[CaptainCrunch]

The only problem that I really have with abortion is that select group that use it as a convienient form of birth control. To me if the baby is putting the mother in danger then fine, to me if its a baby that was caused by abuse or rape or incest, fine. But there are woman out there that are too stupid to insist on a condom, or the pill or whatever and they have gotten abortions on multiple times. I think there needs to be either a limit or consequences to the use of multiple abortions without reasons, like sealing up the baby tube with concrete.

[Flash Walken]

I don't like the idea of paying for someone elses mistake, which is why I believe that Jails and Hospitals should be charity run. if I feel like keeping the criminal element away from me and my family, I will donate a toonie to charity. That way, I am not politicising crime.

Tighten the old boot straps, that'll learn 'em!

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The only problem that I really have with abortion is that select group that use it as a convienient form of birth control. To me if the baby is putting the mother in danger then fine, to me if its a baby that was caused by abuse or rape or incest, fine. But there are woman out there that are too stupid to insist on a condom, or the pill or whatever and they have gotten abortions on multiple times. I think there needs to be either a limit or consequences to the use of multiple abortions without reasons, like sealing up the baby tube with concrete.

I know someone who has had 3 abortions in the last 2 years, laughs it off like it's no big deal. The most sexually irresponsible person I have ever met.

[CaptainCrunch]

yup, thats when you concrete up the baby slide.

Yes ma'am, we've taken your fetus, and now we're going to take your ovaries.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by Azure

The father has as much responsibility, if not more considering the mother can't work in the latter stages of pregnancy and for a while after.....to look after the child, regardless of government support.

His argument, and mine as well to an extent is that why should the taxpayer be forced to support some teenager that was irresponsible?

Why should I pay for her abortion, and why should I pay to support her kid?

Sorry to have to tell you this, but you are most likely going to have to pay whether you want to or not. You (as a member of society) can do preventive maintenance now and try to support the child enough that it becomes a productive member of society and pays taxes when you are old and feeble and need to be taken care of (partially by our society).

Alternately, you can let the teenage mother try to support the child on her own with very limited resources. I would assume that the chances of this child becoming a criminal are much greater. How much does it cost us to investigate crimes, and prosecute and incarcerate criminals? I would also assume that the chances of the child (and mother) having health problems requiring medical attention (paid by the state) would also be much greater. Finally, I would also assume that the child would most likely put much less money back into the government through taxes.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

yup, thats when you concrete up the baby slide.

that's alot of concrete

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

that's alot of concrete

Maybe for the kinds of girls you date.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Maybe for the kinds of girls you date.

go big or go home

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

go big or go home

That's what she (my wife) said.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by peter12

So you believe in government-funded eugenics? What a revolting argument.

No, I am actually quite opposed to abortions for almost all reasons.

The point was for those who think it is a waste of tax dollars to fund abortion are wrong if the basis for oppisition is an economic one. From a strictly economic perspective funding abortions is a better alternative then dealing with the offspring of people not smart enought not to get pregnant and who do not have the resources to get an abortion let alone raise a child.

The study that levitt did was actually attacked for being immoral from both the pro-choice and the pro-life side. It is merely information to explain a drop in crime and doesn't have any politics. People on both sides assume a political motivation behind the work.

[Thor]

Not to mention those vehemently opposed to abortion are doing little to nothing to help the huge numbers of kids in foster care.

If you feel so passionately about life, why not support the foster care system which has unfortunately been a place to throw away children.

But yeah lets keep bringing unwanted children into this world, because obviously we do so well with taking care of those who are already here without families. Lets also deny gay parents adoption, because boarding houses are a better choice.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Thor

Not to mention those vehemently opposed to abortion are doing little to nothing to help the huge numbers of kids in foster care.

If you feel so passionately about life, why not support the foster care system which has unfortunately been a place to throw away children.

But yeah lets keep bringing unwanted children into this world, because obviously we do so well with taking care of those who are already here without families. Lets also deny gay parents adoption, because boarding houses are a better choice.

Oh, so instead of teaching these irresponsible teenagers that they shouldn't put themselves in a position where they HAVE to place a child into foster care because they can't take care of it......we should make it easy for them by having a government program in place that makes it easier for them to abort these kids?

Goddamn us for thinking abortion is a better alternative than making a better effort to make sure those 'innocent' kids are looked after.

[Flame Of Liberty]

You know whats funny, it's usualy the same people who scream at the top of their lungs "abortion is 100% mother's choice" are the first people to take away her parental rights once the baby is born.

Can't oppose state approved curriculum because that's makes her a mother from medieval age. Or god forbid she thinks about home schooling. Can't spank her kid when the kid misbehaves, because that's just cruel 15th century torture. Can't feed her kid with coke and burgers because of transfats and sugar. Can't do this can't do that because that would make you a terrible mother.

But when she wants to kill her fetus they say - go right ahead its YOUR choice!

[driveway]

To get back onto the initial topic, cnn.com is reporting that abstinence-only programs may not entirely be left out in the cold.

"The President is deeply committed to reducing levels of teen pregnancy and believes that parents, families, communities, and the government must come together to address this issue," a White House official told CNN contributor David Brody. "The budget increases overall funding for teenage pregnancy prevention, which may include education on abstinence, and supports programs based on research."

The official told Brody that 75 percent of funding for teen pregnancy prevention will go towards programs that are proven to lower rates, and that some abstinence-only education could qualify.


The official added that the rest of the funds will be directed to "promising, but not yet proven" programs which have given "some indication" of effectiveness in preventing teen pregnancy. "Those programs would have to agree to participate in a rigorous evaluation, and abstinence-only programs could qualify," said the aide.

Sounds like a pretty smart way to go about things to me.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

You know whats funny, it's usualy the same people who scream at the top of their lungs "abortion is 100% mother's choice" are the first people to take away her parental rights once the baby is born.

Can't oppose state approved curriculum because that's makes her a mother from medieval age. Or god forbid she thinks about home schooling. Can't spank her kid when the kid misbehaves, because that's just cruel 15th century torture. Can't feed her kid with coke and burgers because of transfats and sugar. Can't do this can't do that because that would make you a terrible mother.

But when she wants to kill her fetus they say - go right ahead its YOUR choice!

It's also funny that the same people that oppose abortion are the first to scream "no welfare for teenage mothers".

You are griping about a state-enforced curriculum and the other evils of the Nanny State but, apparently, think the state has a right to insist someone remains pregnant against their wishes.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

It's also funny that the same people that oppose abortion are the first to scream "no welfare for teenage mothers".

You are griping about a state-enforced curriculum

I am not a fan of public schools, curriculum is a secondary issue. But I certainly do think the government has no business being involved in education.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

and the other evils of the Nanny State but,

Yes.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

apparently, think the state has a right to insist someone remains pregnant against their wishes.

Where did I say that? My opinion on abortion is that it should be avoided wherever possible and as much as possible, but I don't think it should be outright banned.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Where did I say that? My opinion on abortion is that it should be avoided wherever possible and as much as possible, but I don't think it should be outright banned.

Same here.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

I am not a fan of public schools, curriculum is a secondary issue. But I certainly do think the government has no business being involved in education.

I hate to veer too far off track here (although it is about education, so what the hell) but if not the government, who?

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Where did I say that? My opinion on abortion is that it should be avoided wherever possible and as much as possible, but I don't think it should be outright banned.

Fair enough.