What's outraging you today?

posted by geeblock

I’m not disagreeing with otrap and some of what u say.  just pointing out the irony of wanting more children in the world but not wanting to fund programs to help them. Even more irony to base that belief on a religion that also mandates you help those same children. The whole govt forcing you to do it is a completely separate argument.

No, the whole “government forcing you to do it” is not a separate argument. 

Pro-life is all for helping the children and mothers. They are for directly helping them, not using the government as an intermediary. 

We can agree to dis

posted by geeblock

Also birth control isn’t 100% even when used properly. And while we are on that subject isn’t birth control against the Bible teachings?

No, birth control is not against the Bible. Pretty much only die hard Catholics believe this. 

I will give you an example as to why your main argument in this post is invalid. 

As someone who enjoys adrenaline rushes I wanted to sky dive. It is something that is fun, exciting, etc and relatively safe with two parachutes that would need to fail before you die. Even with that reality me jumping out of a plane there was still a risk that I took because I knew that COULD happen and my life insurance was null and void if I died while sky diving. My wife/kids would be out of my income (95% or our household income) with no life insurance backup. 

Now, when someone has sex it is fun, exciting, etc but has risks (STDs and pregnancy). Even if you “double up” won’t BC pills and a condom there is still a small chance you end up with a baby. YOU are taking this risk, not the general population, so why should the general population have to pay for the “consequences” of your behavior?

I also enjoy the “my body my choice” argument. Waving my arms around with fists clenched is my right until I infringe on someone else’s rights by striking them in the face right? The second science decides that that baby is a life, you lose the right to kill it because that life has the same rights as all other citizens. 

So the “my body” argument is null and void if it is a life.

posted by geeblock

I’m not disagreeing with otrap and some of what u say.  just pointing out the irony of wanting more children in the world but not wanting to fund programs to help them. Even more irony to base that belief on a religion that also mandates you help those same children. The whole govt forcing you to do it is a completely separate argument.

Ultimately, many of us who don't want said social programs believe that the absence of them would change some behavior, meaning there wouldn't necessarily be so many kids in the world ... at least not to the degree that we currently see if we were to assume abortions were to be banned (something I don't advocate, for the record).

As for the faith requiring its adherents to help those within their sphere of influence who need it, the elements contained therein are intentional.  Again, my help is intended to be me giving of myself, not voting to have my other neighbor forced to give of himself.

I can appreciate the desire to separate "helping those same children" and "govt forcing you to do it," but as long as we're talking about federal programs funded by taxes, you really can't.  At that point, they are necessarily linked.
 

posted by geeblock

As a person with no children I feel like those of you with kids shouldn’t get a 5k tax break per kid when I have to pay my full taxes so I get what you are saying 

Shoot, if we're going to have taxes, let's just wipe out all the weights and manipulation, give everyone a flat tax rate, and call it a day.

In general, I agree with you.

posted by geeblock

As a person with no children I feel like those of you with kids shouldn’t get a 5k tax break per kid when I have to pay my full taxes so I get what you are saying 

I agree with this, but I am for a flat tax rate (maybe even flat tax rate per income leve) and no deductions. Simplify the tax code and get rid of a ton of IRS agents. 

Wait, taxation is theft I mean...get rid of all income tax. 

posted by geeblock

No i said they should have the choice to abort the baby. Others say that no they should be forced to have the baby and give it up for adoption so I gave reasons why that solution is not feasible 

Published today:

Annie Lane on May 1, 2019

Dear Annie: I had my 14th birthday two weeks before I gave birth to my son. The hardest thing I have ever done was to sign the paper for him to be adopted. The entire time I was pregnant, I tried to think of any way I would be able to keep and raise my son. At 14, I completed my first semester in ninth grade but had to drop out my second semester.

I cried and prayed each night for a way to keep my son, to be able to take care of him. For years, I would look into the faces of boys and then men to see if I recognized my son. I silently celebrated each birthday, and prayed he was OK and in a loving home. I didn't actively try to find my son as I didn't feel I had any right to look for him, to interrupt his life, or to have any claim to be a part of his life. I never gave up hope and never gave up praying that he was happy and healthy and that he would somehow know from all the "talks" and "love" that we shared while I was carrying him that he would somehow feel that love and not feel abandoned or unwanted.

The best day of my life came more than 45 years later when I received a phone call, and it was my son!

Many times a birth mother really has no choice or is unable, for whatever reason, to raise a child, and if a loving family is unable to have a child of their own but is able to give that baby a loving home, it is a truly great thing.

I still regret that I was unable to be the mother my son needed, and I am grateful that he had a great life with his adoptive parents who loved him, and that he does not hate me for my choices. -- A Loving and Thankful Mother

Dear Birth Mother: Your letter is extremely touching. You sound like a beautiful person and mother. May your letter help people who are wondering if their birth mothers wanted them.

thats awesome and i hope more people take that route.  That being said i am against making a law forcing them to.

posted by O-Trap

Meh.  Private companies doing what they appear to believe is in their best interest.  She was a singer.

I mean, it's worth mentioning, but I can't say this bothers me at all.

I don't gaf what she was, it's the 'rationale' behind it--and private companies or not, the bowing to these bullshit 'pressures' before doing due diligence on the backstory just shows the how spineless our society has become

posted by vball10set

I don't gaf what she was, it's the 'rationale' behind it--and private companies or not, the bowing to these bullshit 'pressures' before doing due diligence on the backstory just shows the how spineless our society has become

I think we should just erase all our history prior to about 1960.  The US rise to prominence begins with Motown....

Still waiting for the buildings and highways named after Robert Byrd, democrat KKK leader, to be destroyed or re-named.

posted by QuakerOats

 

Still waiting for the buildings and highways named after Robert Byrd, democrat KKK leader, to be destroyed or re-named.

Sure, we also can add all the Jefferson Davis, Robert E Lee signs, and the following base named from Confederate generals to be changed: 

• Fort Benning (Georgia)
• Fort Bragg (North Carolina) 
• Fort Hood (Texas) 
• Fort Lee (Virginia) 
• Fort Polk (Louisiana)
• Fort Gordon (Georgia)
• Fort Pickett (Virginia)
• Fort A.P. Hill (Virginia)

Gotta burn all the books too, especially history books.  Then confiscate guns.

posted by QuakerOats

 

 

Gotta burn all the books too, especially history books.  Then confiscate guns.

Nah. Just rename the signs and bases in the name of winners, not losers. History is for the classroom, battlefields, and cemeteries, not road signs and military bases. Hell, use WWII heroes names for instance. 

posted by vball10set

I don't gaf what she was, it's the 'rationale' behind it--and private companies or not, the bowing to these bullshit 'pressures' before doing due diligence on the backstory just shows the how spineless our society has become

I really don't see what would be upsetting about businesses doing what the businesses think is in their best interest from a profitability standpoint.

They're not 'bowing'.  They're just in the business of making money and not standing up to some abstract, subjective concept of what is and isn't acceptable.

If you don't like that, start a business in competition with them and instead of doing what they're doing, be willing to die on the hills they're not, if you think that's what's going to be best for business.

I just don't see why this is upsetting.  They've decided to remove the use or likeness of an entertainer because the entertainer wrote song that may be seen as racist, and while there's some idea that the alleged racism might be done in satirical fashion to actually oppose racism, it wouldn't be understood by the masses today.

Which part of that makes this outrageous?

I did look at the songs today “picinanny heaven” and “that’s what darkies are for” (originally performed by a black person) both songs are neither good or entertaining imo but I’m sure there are worse songs out there during that time. 

I've said it before, but Congressional hearings (open door, anyway) are a complete waste of time.  The sole purpose appears to be to manufacture soundbites for the campaign trail.

And I'm tired of public servants going before the committees and being deceptive and uncooperative.  But if that's how they're treated, then to some extent it's understandable. Just sad that voters continue to tolerate this behavior from their elected officials.

 The second science decides that that baby is a life, you lose the right to kill it because that life has the same rights as all other citizens. 

Jmog you just made an argument as to why birth control must as immoral as an abortion if you think abortion is immoral. 

Despite liberals like the Obama administration playing it down and living in the denial - one mechanism of action of birth control pills is to thin the endometrium so that fertilized eggs (newly conceived human beings) will knowingly fail to implant in the uteral lining. Indeed, the "death" is all but equivalent to that which occurs in an early term abortion. 

Moreover plenty of non-catholic christians consider the birth control pill to be an abortifacient because of this mechanism of action.

And that's not even considering in vitro clinics which are basically mini-holocaust centers if it is morally wrong to knowingly cause the "death" of fertilized ova. 

posted by gut

I've said it before, but Congressional hearings (open door, anyway) are a complete waste of time.  The sole purpose appears to be to manufacture soundbites for the campaign trail.

And I'm tired of public servants going before the committees and being deceptive and uncooperative.  But if that's how they're treated, then to some extent it's understandable. Just sad that voters continue to tolerate this behavior from their elected officials.

Surprise - Gut is sympathetic to Trump administration officials stonewalling Congress now when he railed about ending their pensions when the stonewallers were in the Obama administration.

posted by BoatShoes

Surprise - Gut is sympathetic to Trump administration officials stonewalling Congress now when he railed about ending their pensions when the stonewallers were in the Obama administration.

LOL.....I'm shocked - SHOCKED - that the board's resident pseudo-master of false equivalency ignores what's been written and tries another tired strawman argument.  Barr didn't plead the 5th, and he's not testifying because he or his office are under scrutiny of wrongdoing.

posted by BoatShoes

Jmog you just made an argument as to why birth control must as immoral as an abortion if you think abortion is immoral. 

Despite liberals like the Obama administration playing it down and living in the denial - one mechanism of action of birth control pills is to thin the endometrium so that fertilized eggs (newly conceived human beings) will knowingly fail to implant in the uteral lining. Indeed, the "death" is all but equivalent to that which occurs in an early term abortion. 

Moreover plenty of non-catholic christians consider the birth control pill to be an abortifacient because of this mechanism of action.

And that's not even considering in vitro clinics which are basically mini-holocaust centers if it is morally wrong to knowingly cause the "death" of fertilized ova. 

The part you quoted of mine doesn’t give any credence to your statement at all. 

I have never seen a scientific journal/research/essay that would claim a zygote (newly fertilized egg) is life. So the part you quoted would definitely not be an argument against birth control. 

That is the argument that die hard Catholics use. 80-90% of all Christians (low 80s for some denominations high 80s for others) have no issues with birth control pills according to Pew Research Center. So not even among Christians is it a belief held but by a few.