Pubbie v. left THUNDERDOME (apparently)

You seem to be forgetting that in a democracy, the government acts with the consent of the governed, which means many things that we wish the government would do (or wouldn't do) simply won't get done (or will) due to a lack of a majority to support the measure. In those circumstances, I would argue that you're better off trying to get like-minded individuals to provide that service privately instead of whining about the evil majority that doesn't respect people's rights. Even if the latter is true, whining isn't going to help anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Right thread?

---

Right thread for discussing.....what, exactly? Planned Parenthood's federal dollars? Abortion services and rights? Or just any public service like fire or police protection? There's also a thread about Federal Disaster assistance, if you want to go there.....

More to the point, I personally find this decision to be a disturbing and dangerous precedent. If a 'good' citizen is expected to get on their belly and assume the position whenever a person claiming to be the police bursts into their home, how long will it be until some enterprising members of the Hot Cops decides it's an easier way of making a buck or two.

I seem to recall a similar incident happening recently in another state, where criminals were pretending to be police executing no knock warrants. (Guess which state recently allowed police officers to execute no knock-warrant at their discretion without a judges permission?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Right thread for discussing.....what, exactly? Planned Parenthood's federal dollars? Abortion services and rights? Or just any public service like fire or police protection? There's also a thread about Federal Disaster assistance, if you want to go there.....

---

The right thread in that you were the one bringing these issues up here? I'm sorry, it was, and is, an absurd claim that you are making. I don't think it matters where it's posted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

You seem to be forgetting that in a democracy, the government acts with the consent of the governed, which means many things that we wish the government would do (or wouldn't do) simply won't get done (or will) due to a lack of a majority to support the measure. In those circumstances, I would argue that you're better off trying to get like-minded individuals to provide that service privately instead of whining about the evil majority that doesn't respect people's rights. Even if the latter is true, whining isn't going to help anyone.

---

See, you're making a loaded statement there (whining) to support your cause. And the same people whose money directs Pubbie votes buys the media narrative for the most part, so the governed have to work rather hard to actually be informed. I'm sure many Pubbie voters are just heinous human beings, but never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity, what ho!

Erm, right, that nefarious right-wing media brain-washing the masses to hate the Democratic party. :bored:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Erm, right, that nefarious right-wing media brain-washing the masses to hate the Democratic party. :bored:

---

:haha:

Anyway, back to "whining", legitimacy and realism; any Soviet citizen didn't have much choice in how shitty life was, and trying to change that (whining) would usually result in harsh reprimand. In the US, what is the down-side to the whining? Your annoyance? That's not incentive enough for anyone to cease protesting perceived injustice, god you may be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

More to the point, I personally find this decision to be a disturbing and dangerous precedent. If a 'good' citizen is expected to get on their belly and assume the position whenever a person claiming to be the police bursts into their home, how long will it be until some enterprising members of the Hot Cops decides it's an easier way of making a buck or two.

I seem to recall a similar incident happening recently in another state, where criminals were pretending to be police executing no knock warrants. (Guess which state recently allowed police officers to execute no knock-warrant at their discretion without a judges permission?)

The right thread in that you were the one bringing these issues up here? I'm sorry, it was, and is, an absurd claim that you are making. I don't think it matters where it's posted.

---

Then you'll understand why women, who are NOT criminals, feel they're being victimized by the gov't when told which situations they can lie down on their backs, and for which purpose?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Then you'll understand why women, who are NOT criminals, feel they're being victimized by the gov't when told which situations they can lie down on their backs, and for which purpose?

---

I don't understand that, no. The women I know are much too strong to be 'victimized' by the state government not providing funding to an organization. I believe, and would hope that is true of the majority of women.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

I don't understand that, no. The women I know are much too strong to be 'victimized' by the state government not providing funding to an organization. I believe, and would hope that is true of the majority of women.

---

I.e. if you can't pay for [whatever], FUCK YOU.

If you can't pay for something, you are a victim?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

I don't understand that, no. The women I know are much too strong to be 'victimized' by the state government not providing funding to an organization. I believe, and would hope that is true of the majority of women.

---

But you're more than willing to accept the idea that "property owners" can be exploited by police, or those making policy and taking away their "rights"?

All the while claiming women have some magical force over their bodies that's more powerful than a shotgun at the front door against police that have no-knock warrant power?

What?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

But you're more than willing to accept the idea that "property owners" can be exploited by police, or those making policy and taking away their "rights"?

All the while claiming women have some magical force over their bodies that's more powerful than a shotgun at the front door against police that have no-knock warrant power?

What?

---

What indeed. What, exactly, are you talking about?

To be precise: Where have I ever claimed a woman has a magical force over their body that is more powerful than a shotgun? How is this relevant to the conversation? And what does it have to do with the price of Uranium in Nippon?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

What indeed. What, exactly, are you talking about?

---

I am asking you to explain how you can defend "personal property rights" when it comes to businesses or gun ownership. It's clear you'd sway toward the individual, and would expect the government to protect and defend the individual's rights.

But then you'd abrogate the same principles when it comes to a woman exercising "personal property rights" of her own body, if it means abortion? And wouldn't expect the government to protect and defend her individual rights?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

I am asking you to explain how you can defend "personal property rights" when it comes to businesses or gun ownership. It's clear you'd sway toward the individual, and would expect the government to protect and defend the individual's rights.

But then you'd abrogate the same principles when it comes to a woman exercising "personal property rights" of her own body, if it means abortion? And wouldn't expect the government to protect and defend her individual rights?

---

The government seems to do very little in the way of protecting and defending individual rights. It certainly is not in the habit of doing so. So, no, my expectation is not that the government would do any such thing.

Secondly, I haven't and don't believe women, men, or organizations have a right to state coffers. You certainly have the right to do with your body as you will, I, however, don't have to subsidize it. What is more, you seem to be of the opinion that you have a right to whatever medical procedure your heart desires, on the governments dime; I do not.

Your belief seems to be that any efforts to remove subsidies somehow constitutes an infringement of rights.

By that logic, by removing subsidies and tax breaks to oil companies, are we infringing on their right to drill?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

The government seems to do very little in the way of protecting and defending individual rights. It certainly is not in the habit of doing so. So, no, my expectation is not that the government would do any such thing.

---

I doubt you've just given up on the whole thing, though.

Quote:

---

Secondly, I haven't and don't believe women, men, or organizations have a right to state coffers. You certainly have the right to do with your body as you will, I, however, don't have to subsidize it. You seem to be of the opinion that you have a right to whatever medical procedure your heart desires, on the governments dime; I do not. Furthermore, your belief seems to be that any efforts to remove subsidies somehow constitutes an infringement of rights.

---

You're mixing protection of Rights with state coffers. Are you also placing a higher value to things like guns over uteruses? You certainly have the right to buy and carry a firearm, and I DO expect some portion of our tax dollars (subsidy) will pay for a registration and regulatory agency of your firearm. But no one is born with a gun in their hand, like women are born with a uterus. You may have a "Right" to buy or carry a gun, but that shouldn't compare to females born with a uterus.

Quote:

---

By removing subsidies and tax breaks to oil companies, are we infringing on their right to drill?

---

No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

You're mixing protection of Rights with state coffers. Are you also placing a higher value to things like guns over uteruses? You certainly have the right to buy and carry a firearm, and I DO expect some portion of our tax dollars (subsidy) will pay for a registration and regulatory agency of your firearm. But no one is born with a gun in their hand, like women are born with a uterus. You may have a "Right" to buy or carry a gun, but that shouldn't compare to females born with a uterus.

---

This simply doesn't make sense. When you can make it cogent I'll be more than happy to reply.

Quote:

---

No.

---

Funny how that works, isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

This doesn't simply make sense. When you can make it cogent I'll be more than happy to reply.

---

It's perfectly sensible. Our founding fathers took special care to talk about freedoms, and all men being created equal. But it also took much longer to interpret "men" meaning all people, including blacks and women. I find it both fascinating and frustrating that certain states would push so hard for the Right to own and carry a firearm, but take the opposite approach toward women having the Right to birth control and abortion.

Quote:

---

Funny how that works, isn't it?

---

Difference being you're not born with a gun in your belly, or an oil well in your testicles, like women are born with a uterus. :donkey:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

It's perfectly sensible. Our founding fathers took special care to talk about freedoms, and all men being created equal. But it also took much longer to interpret "men" meaning all people, including blacks and women. I find it both fascinating and frustrating that certain states would push so hard for the Right to own and carry a firearm, but take the opposite approach toward women having the Right to birth control and abortion.

---

That's all well and good. That's also not the position I took, and it certainly has nothing to do with the Indiana law. Nobodies right to have birth control or an abortion is impacted by a state defunding Planned Parenthood. Full stop.

Quote:

---

Difference being you're not born with a gun in your belly, or an oil well in your testicles, like women are born with a uterus. :donkey:

---

So? Rights only extend to that which you are born with? Speech, property, and the franchise need not apply? In fact just because I'm born with a pair of testicles doesn't mean I have a right to a vasectomy bought and paid for on the tax payers dime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

If you can't pay for something, you are a victim?

---

If I can't pay for cabbage, I'm not that much of a victim. If I can't pay for someone to keep me from being beaten, raped and put into a tiny box for 28 years, yeah then I'm more of a victim. Your question doesn't really make sense. My fault, with the [whatever], I suppose, I should have been more adamant with the abortion line. Fie on ye, semantics, your incessant aid to Pubbies does not go unnoticed!

(back to the initial topic for a moment...)

Yes Nessus, I am pretty sure that unlawful police entry into a home is... unlawful. :bulb:

The court agrees that it's still unlawful, but says that you just can't attack the police even if they are violating your constitutional rights, in the guise of protecting such a situation from getting out of control -- creating injuries or deaths of the police or others. Interesting reasoning, but inherently flawed and constitutionally incorrect.

If an armed intruder walks into your house, do you politely give him all your stuff, let him do whatever s/e wants, and then call the police and/or your lawyer? What's so different about an armed intruder in a policeman's uniform, who happens to be a policeman?

Reasonable people expect to be served with a search warrant or informed of probable cause. If neither is shown or offered, and it is found that the police officer used force against a resisting individual, then he should be fully within his rights to sue both the police officer and the department... and I would say that all this would stem from the Constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

:haha:

Anyway, back to "whining", legitimacy and realism; any Soviet citizen didn't have much choice in how shitty life was, and trying to change that (whining) would usually result in harsh reprimand. In the US, what is the down-side to the whining? Your annoyance? That's not incentive enough for anyone to cease protesting perceived injustice, god you may be.

---

Soviet citizens also didn't have the choice to leave.

Is all the "fuck you"ing really necessary?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

Some people on the Internet are getting mighty upset about this.

Is this one of those Pubbie things where you fuck the poor and jizz goes to fund the rich? If the cops can show up without proper procedure, any evidence they get will be tainted if the accused can afford a lawyer to point that out. So black crack user goes to prison, white collar fuck-face gets a blowjob from the judge and the cops. Is that about right?

---

I do have to add my voice to the pit and ask what your view on this actually is. This is a court case, not some Republican initiative. In fact, it probably goes against the values of many elements in the Republican and Democratic party. So party affiliation doesn't matter.

Yet it's an interesting dilemma of when can you refuse entry to a police officer. I know someone who had an issue with this about a year ago. And I would be happy to discuss it, but how the hell is anyone supposed to respond to a post like this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

Some people on the Internet are getting mighty upset about this.

Is this one of those Pubbie things where you fuck the poor and jizz goes to fund the rich? If the cops can show up without proper procedure, any evidence they get will be tainted if the accused can afford a lawyer to point that out. So black crack user goes to prison, white collar fuck-face gets a blowjob from the judge and the cops. Is that about right?

---

I expect most Republicans aren't happy/won't be happy with this ruling. Yes, they tend to be supportive of police action and plenty aren't fond of lots of defense technicalities etc, but they're also really fond of defense of self and home, remember. Even if their lawyers can get them out of things, they're going to be hostile to the idea that they can't defend themselves or their homes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

The government seems to do very little in the way of protecting and defending individual rights. It certainly is not in the habit of doing so.

---

I'd have to say that the very fact you are able to post this on a message board, via the internet, without someone, either a regular citizen, or some representative of the government coming to murder or maim you for doing so is probably an indicator that they are doing something to ensure your individuals rights are not inhibited. This at least leads me to believe that "seems to do very little" actually means "not doing as much as I want them to".

People have a right to not be harmed by other private citizens?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

People have a right to not be harmed by other private citizens?

---

Our government and quite a few others seem to think so, because if I were to punch you in the face for asking this question you could, if you wanted, have a police officer arrest me for assault.

I think you need to read up on what a "right" means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I think you need to read up on what a "right" means.

---

I actually think you need to, as it would benefit you far more. People can have their "rights" infringed by private citizens. Governments were created to ensure this does not occur. For instance if someone were to strangle you to death, they would be infringing your natural right to life, and the government would ensure that this right was defended via an already existing law making it illegal to kill someone. :bored:

If I'm wrong, you're free to outline how so instead of quipping that I am, because I could read a thousand books on "Rights" from philosophies on such to legal texts, and this still would not tell me why you think I'm in error. Which I guess is one way to do it, because if you did outline this, other people could claim you are in error, and we couldn't have Loki being wrong now could we?

For Nessus: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/14/ny...-push.html?hpw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

I'd have to say that the very fact you are able to post this on a message board, via the internet, without someone, either a regular citizen, or some representative of the government coming to murder or maim you for doing so is probably an indicator that they are doing something to ensure your individuals rights are not inhibited. This at least leads me to believe that "seems to do very little" actually means "not doing as much as I want them to".

---

What it really does is tells me you have a very high threshold for what constitutes an infringement on an individual's rights.

I'm also under no illusions that it is very likely that this, and other online traffic is being searched, analyzed, cataloged, and archived by the intelligence apparatus within this country.

But sure, because I wasn't dragged out of my home and summarily executed in the street the government must be in the business of putting the individual's rights first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

People have a right to not be harmed by other private citizens?

---

What a crazy question. Isn't this the ultimate basis for government? The government implements a framework of laws to keep individuals from harming each other in one way or another, be it through violence, theft, or dishonest/unfair business practices - and all manner of other things?

To Nessus: Don't fret over the erosion of Freedom in the US (and eventually everywhere else). The truth is this is a necessity; Human Civilization cannot survive long into the future without government having much more control over the lives of individuals. The loss of Freedom = species survival. Sooner than later, in a best case scenario, all of human society will more resemble China's socio-economic model than Western Democracy's. Think of it as Niven's benevolent dictatorship in A World Out of Time. The quality of life for the individual depends on the quality of the dictatorial leadership - and yes, history is not encouraging on this point. Probably a broad, diverse leadership 'council' or 'team' that makes decisions collectively with, hopefully, some level of wisdom and compassion is the best hope for a long term future that maximizes the ability for the individual to thrive and the species to survive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

I don't understand that, no. The women I know are much too strong to be 'victimized' by the state government not providing funding to an organization. I believe, and would hope that is true of the majority of women.

---

Hi,

the majority of women are probably not overly victimised any more than you or Loki are (although it's possible we're all victims of tyrannical governments). I hear there's another group of women, however, known as the "minority" of women. Hmm this may be a good way to mitigate some of the tax-extortioning seatbelt-mandating torture to which the state subjects them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

What it really does is tells me you have a very high threshold for what constitutes an infringement on an individual's rights.

---

I take it subjectivity isn't your thing?

Quote:

---

I'm also under no illusions that it is very likely that this, and other online traffic is being searched, analyzed, cataloged, and archived by the intelligence apparatus within this country.

---

Google Ads? Nefarious!

Quote:

---

But sure, because I wasn't dragged out of my home and summarily executed in the street the government must be in the business of putting the individual's rights first.

---

It tells us they aren't in the business of stomping people into the ground on every occasion where someone criticizes the government, and will try to make sure others don't harm you for doing so either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

That's all well and good. That's also not the position I took, and it certainly has nothing to do with the Indiana law. Nobodies right to have birth control or an abortion is impacted by a state defunding Planned Parenthood. Full stop.

---

I disagree. Kansas, Oklahoma and South Dakota show what happens when state or local laws are written to skirt federal 'protections', for availability and access to birth control or abortion. They use phrases like 'property rights' or 'state rights' to deny abortion clinics rental leases, or a business license for their own property, by manipulating zoning codes. The state/city runs women's clinics out of town, leaving only PP to service growing regions and numbers of women. Yes, doing that directly impacts womens' access to health services.

Quote:

---

So? Rights only extend to that which you are born with? Speech, property, and the franchise need not apply? In fact just because I'm born with a pair of testicles doesn't mean I have a right to a vasectomy bought and paid for on the tax payers dime.

---

No, I said your Right to buy/own/carry a firearm is protected by the government, but it's also a Privilege you can lose, and comes with registration guidelines and regulations. In most states using deadly force if/when needed to protect our homes is also a protected Right. Indiana apparently wants to allow illegal police forced-entry our homes, and people can't legally defend themselves. That gives too much power to the state legislators and to state police forces. Are we agreed on that?

Women have a Right to control their bodies and reproduction, to plan families and use legal birth control. Too bad if some groups morally object to abortion---it's a legally protected method of birth control. BC is not considered a Privilege for only the wealthy or well-connected, but parenthood is---and can be revoked if abused or misused. Indiana apparently wants to allow anti-abortion and pro-life groups control legislation, in such a way that all other BC is limited or prohibitive. That gives too much power to the state legislators and the morality police. Would you agree or disagree?

(Your vasectomy example doesn't work because that's sterilization, not temporary 'sperm management'. As for the tax payers' dime, why wouldn't you 'approve' of Medicaid men having a subsidized voluntary vasectomy, if it helps them live a better quality of life, lifts them out of poverty, lessens the need for abortions, and reduces exponential Medicaid/welfare dependent children?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

To Nessus: Don't fret over the erosion of Freedom in the US (and eventually everywhere else). The truth is this is a necessity; Human Civilization cannot survive long into the future without government having much more control over the lives of individuals. The loss of Freedom = species survival. Sooner than later, in a best case scenario, all of human society will more resemble China's socio-economic model than Western Democracy's. Think of it as Niven's benevolent dictatorship in A World Out of Time. The quality of life for the individual depends on the quality of the dictatorial leadership - and yes, history is not encouraging on this point. Probably a broad, diverse leadership 'council' or 'team' that makes decisions collectively with, hopefully, some level of wisdom and compassion is the best hope for a long term future that maximizes the ability for the individual to thrive and the species to survive.

---

As Chinese society buckles at the seams, I can't tell if it's delightfully incorrect or just plain disturbing that you actually hold this view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

Google Ads? Nefarious!

---

If Google is doing it, I can't help but wonder how much better the wunderkind at the NSA are able to do so with all your network traffic, taken directly from the source.

Quote:

---

It tells us they aren't in the business of stomping people into the ground on every occasion where someone criticizes the government, and will try to make sure others don't harm you for doing so either.

---

If you can criticize the government without being stomped into the ground, then it is impossible for the government to be infringing your rights as a private citizen? Is that right?

I think I'll stand by my statement that you have an extremely high tolerance for abuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

I disagree. Kansas, Oklahoma and South Dakota show what happens when state or local laws are written to skirt federal 'protections', for availability and access to birth control or abortion. They use phrases like 'property rights' or 'state rights' to deny abortion clinics rental leases, or a business license for their own property, by manipulating zoning codes. The state/city runs women's clinics out of town, leaving only PP to service growing regions and numbers of women. Yes, doing that directly impacts womens' access to health services.

---

I'm sure you do.

Quote:

---

Women have a Right to control their bodies and reproduction, to plan families and use legal birth control. Too bad if some groups morally object to abortion---it's a legally protected method of birth control. BC is not considered a Privilege for only the wealthy or well-connected, but parenthood is---and can be revoked if abused or misused. Indiana apparently wants to allow anti-abortion and pro-life groups control legislation, in such a way that all other BC is limited or prohibitive. That gives too much power to the state legislators and the morality police. Would you agree or disagree?

---

Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it is always guaranteed to be available. Furthermore, there are no restrictions on Planned Parenthood continuing to operate. Not signing over a check for something is not the same as making it illegal, regardless of how many times you imply it is.

Quote:

---

(Your vasectomy example doesn't work because that's sterilization, not temporary 'sperm management'. As for the tax payers' dime, why wouldn't you 'approve' of Medicaid men having a subsidized voluntary vasectomy, if it helps them live a better quality of life, lifts them out of poverty, lessens the need for abortions, and reduces exponential Medicaid/welfare dependent children?)

---

My example doesn't work because it doesn't meet arbitrary standards that you have just now set? I'm positively shocked.

And of course I don't support subsidizing elective procedures on the tax payers dime. If breast implants, face lifts, and tummy tucks help lift poor, impoverished women out of poverty, lessen the need for welfare, and exponentially increases tax revenues for the future, should we fund them?

Is Nessus going to actually express a clear opinion on this issue? :bulb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

I'm sure you do.

Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it is always guaranteed to be available. Furthermore, there are no restrictions on Planned Parenthood continuing to operate. Not signing over a check for something is not the same as making it illegal, regardless of how many times you imply it is.

---

Difference being when laws are used to purposely disrupt their services, to the detriment of women's health. PP would still operate, but cutting off their federal or state funds will really impact women's health. Don't underestimate how expensive health care is, the millions uninsured, and they can cut costs because they're non-profit. Remember, those federal funds do NOT go toward abortion services, but family planning and birth control. What a stupid, short-sighted thing to cut.

Quote:

---

My example doesn't work because it doesn't meet arbitrary standards that you have just now set? I'm positively shocked.

---

You're the one who brought up vasectomies. I'd be fine with PP offering male "services" like vasectomies or hormonal injections, as part of Family Planning.

Quote:

---

And of course I don't support subsidizing elective procedures on the tax payers dime. If breast implants, face lifts, and tummy tucks help lift poor, impoverished women out of poverty, lessen the need for welfare, and exponentially increases tax revenues for the future, should we fund them?

---

Wow, you're really comparing cosmetic surgery with reproductive procedures, and they're all done on the tax payer's dime because they're elective? False. Even circumcisions aren't covered by Medicaid.


<edit: Just realized you didn't answer if you agreed with the other paragraph, regarding too much power in the hands of legislators and police forces. Why did you ignore that part, since it segues with the second part? >

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Difference being when laws are used to purposely disrupt their services, to the detriment of women's health. PP would still operate, but cutting off their federal or state funds will really impact women's health. Don't underestimate how expensive health care is, the millions uninsured, and they can cut costs because they're non-profit. Remember, those federal funds do NOT go toward abortion services, but family planning and birth control. What a stupid, short-sighted thing to cut.

---

First problem, this isn't federal funding. There might very well be stipulations in the Indiana code about what the funding can be used for, but I have a feeling it wouldn't matter, as this is simply you muddying the waters.

Second problem, is that it's like I said before, (and you failed to address then) you are trying to have it both ways. If these funds do not go toward providing abortions then I can't see how you can possibly be arguing that Indiana is limiting access to abortion.

Furthermore, Planned Parenthood hasn't gone out of business and closed up shop in Indiana, it has been receiving support from private donations. Funny how that works, isn't it?

You seem to believe that various private organizations and groups have a right to uninterrupted public funding, regardless of the reason. Why is that?

Quote:

---

You're the one who brought up vasectomies. I'd be fine with PP offering male "services" like vasectomies or hormonal injections, as part of Family Planning.

---

There you have it! We agree! The only thing I don't agree with is PP getting funding from the state, local, or federal governments.

Quote:

---

Wow, you're really comparing cosmetic surgery with reproductive procedures, and they're all done on the tax payer's dime because they're elective? False. Even circumcisions aren't covered by Medicaid.

---

You are arguing that the ends justify the means. I'm trying to get you to see how impossibly stupid that argument is.

Quote:

---

<edit: Just realized you didn't answer if you agreed with the other paragraph, regarding too much power in the hands of legislators and police forces. Why did you ignore that part, since it segues with the second part? >

---

I agree with precious little you write. I didn't comment on it because it is a non sequitur. Stream of consciousness posting may be a rewarding way to write for you, but it doesn't necessarily make for clear or well reasoned posts. You are trying to create a chain of causality between legislators allowing police to enter a residence for any reason, right or wrong, and the state government destroying reproductive rights because it doesn't fund a private organization. No such link exists, nor can it exist. Simply eliminating funding for something does not make it illegal, or even inaccessible. Furthermore, Planned Parenthood is not the be all end all when it comes to reproductive health and services.

If the government cut funding to NPR, would it be destroying our first amendment rights?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

First problem, this isn't federal funding. There might very well be stipulations in the Indiana code about what the funding can be used for, but I have a feeling it wouldn't matter, as this is simply you muddying the waters.

Second problem, is that it's like I said before, (and you failed to address then) you are trying to have it both ways. If these funds do not go toward providing abortions then *I can't see how you can possibly be arguing that Indiana is limiting access to abortion*.

Furthermore, Planned Parenthood hasn't gone out of business and closed up shop in Indiana, it has been receiving support from donations. Funny how that works, isn't it?

You seem to believe that various private organizations and groups have a right to uninterrupted public funding, regardless of the reason. Why is that?

---

You "have a feeling" none of this matters? Seems to me you're inserting your bias into what I've written, and that's what is muddying the waters. These things DO work both ways you know---private non-profit health care providers DO rely on a portion of government (tax payer) dollars. Indiana has decided to reject federal funds, so they can restrict their state funds. The same type of tactic is being considered for Medicaid (see Texas).

I'm not arguing that Indiana is limiting access to abortion. That's patently obvious. What you're missing is how defunding PP (on the misguided "goal" of limiting access to abortion) will hurt women needing pregnancy prevention methods, education, and Family Planning. They're throwing the baby out with the bath water, so to speak.

You seem to believe women's reproductive health is super easy and really cheap. Just abstain or use a condom? That is so far from reality, I have to ask what planet you're on. Pay out of pocket cash to pay the OB/GYN? Do you have any idea how much that costs, and why women use PP in the first place? Many have NO employer health insurance, and very little funds to pay the $200 for office pelvic exams and PAPs. The cytology is another $100-200. Blood work extra. Mammograms are at least $200. Add on the cost of fitting a diaphragm or inserting and IUD or hormone implants....this all adds up to real money, real costs.

Women's BC and reproductive health is complicated and expensive. If the real goal is to reduce abortions, the real answer would be to fund PP more. I'm arguing that women have a need for healthcare involving their reproductive systems. Just like children need check-ups and vaccinations. The costs are prohibitive for the poor, working poor, uninsured, underinsured. Your answer to that is to.....slash federal funds in one place.....so costs will show up in another? Then slash those funds, too? If women can't "buy it on their own", and charities can't fill their needs either, they're just shit out of luck?

Quote:

---

There you have it! We agree! The only thing I don't agree with is PP getting funding from the state, local, or federal governments.
You are arguing that the ends justify the means. I'm trying to get you to see how impossibly stupid that argument is.

---

Not really. You're arguing that everything should be privatized, or provided by charity. No Tax Dollars! You're placing women's health on the same level as any other 'capital commodity'....say, sports stadiums or something. That's patently absurd. Health falls in with categories like Public Education and Public Safety. General Public Welfare. (Before the word welfare became bastardized.)

Quote:

---

I agree with precious little you write. I didn't comment on it because it is a non sequitur. Stream of consciousness posting may be a rewarding way to write for you, but it doesn't make for clear or well reasoned posts. You are trying to create a chain of causality between legislators allowing police to enter a residence for any reason, right or wrong, and the state government destroying reproductive rights because it doesn't fund a private organization. No such link exists, nor can it exist. Simply eliminating funding for something does not make it illegal, or even inaccessible. Furthermore, Planned Parenthood is not the be all end all when it comes to reproductive health and services.

If the government cut funding to NPR, would it be destroying our first amendment rights?

---

:rolleyes: You're making the wrong "links" from my posts, but that's your bias showing, not my stream of consciousNess you're trying to "link". The state can very well diminish and destroy women's health.....not just by de-funding a private organization, as you suggest.....but by writing legislation so strict and tight that necessary services become unavailable or inaccessible. Just ask Kansas, Oklahoma, or South Dakota how that works.

We're not talking Dry Counties or Free Radio here. But when legislators exceed their scope, abuse their powers, to the detriment of citizens.