Pubbie v. left THUNDERDOME (apparently)

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

05-17-2011, 06:35 AM
Nessus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

May Day was 16 days ago. :o

But aw come on, don't take it personally. I'm not criticizing you having stuff to do, I'm saying that you posted a thread with a somewhat nonsensical commentary about an issue that is really worth discussing. And I'm curious what your view actually is on this.

True, I am not aware of what's going on in Finland besides the leader of the True Finns publishing a very weird editorial in our Wall Street Journal.

We won the World Championship in ice hockey. Semi-finals against Russia, final match against Sweden. Let's just say the whole nation has been...Pre-occupied.

If my commentary is non-sensical, why pester me for more? It seems awfully chauvinistic to presume that if you just poke at me long enough, I'll start discourse on some plane you're comfortable with. I've said it time and time again, you and I cannot find enough common ground for a discussion to happen. But, remember that thread where you branded me a Kathasungian pseudo-thinker? What do you think my views are on the US as a police state?
05-17-2011, 09:44 AM
Aimless

Hey Enuch this is one of those issues where you don't really care about the practical/effects as much as you care about the abstract, isn't it? Eg. like in those discussions of healthcare where people gloss over the importance of such things as cost and availability, or those discussions of education where people gloss over the importance of location and socioeconomic class, or those discussions of unemployment where people often gloss over the fact that humans aren't infinitely mutable widgets. Or those discussions of social security where people gloss over everything that makes a systematic nationalised approach much better than relying on the nobility of a few amateurs.

You're right in the abstract head-in-the-clouds sense. Not sponsoring abortions with federal money doesn't remove the theoretical right of women to have abortions. In practice, any woman that can easily bear the increased costs of the procedure, or manage the increased travel distances and associated costs (because you can't deny that taking away government money will have some tangible impact on those things unless you deny that money matters, which is insane) will still get her abortion. A number of women will not get abortions. That latter group represents a group whose decision to abort has been affected by the decision to not fund abortion with gummint money. It's probably the group that has the most to gain from abortions.

I'm pretty sure I've heard somewhere that even such things as price changes and travel distances influence usage of abortion. Le sigh

You libertarians :o
05-17-2011, 11:39 AM
Dreadnaught

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessus

If my commentary is non-sensical, why pester me for more? It seems awfully chauvinistic to presume that if you just poke at me long enough, I'll start discourse on some plane you're comfortable with. I've said it time and time again, you and I cannot find enough common ground for a discussion to happen. But, remember that thread where you branded me a Kathasungian pseudo-thinker? What do you think my views are on the US as a police state?

Because I think you have a good mind and would have interesting views on the issue, but you were just being facetious in the opening post. I just want to know if you think there are cases where someone can refuse entry to a police officer. Not sure why this is like pulling teeth.
05-17-2011, 02:42 PM
Enoch the Red

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aimless

Hey Enuch this is one of those issues where you don't really care about the practical/effects as much as you care about the abstract, isn't it? Eg. like in those discussions of healthcare where people gloss over the importance of such things as cost and availability, or those discussions of education where people gloss over the importance of location and socioeconomic class, or those discussions of unemployment where people often gloss over the fact that humans aren't infinitely mutable widgets. Or those discussions of social security where people gloss over everything that makes a systematic nationalised approach much better than relying on the nobility of a few amateurs.

Absolutely Minx. Things like costs, national debt, and how these services are magically provided are all very abstract concepts, and not rooted in reality what-so-ever.

Quote:

You're right in the abstract head-in-the-clouds sense. Not sponsoring abortions with federal money doesn't remove the theoretical right of women to have abortions. In practice, any woman that can easily bear the increased costs of the procedure, or manage the increased travel distances and associated costs (because you can't deny that taking away government money will have some tangible impact on those things unless you deny that money matters, which is insane) will still get her abortion. A number of women will not get abortions. That latter group represents a group whose decision to abort has been affected by the decision to not fund abortion with gummint money. It's probably the group that has the most to gain from abortions.

Government money is already barred from providing abortions, except in certain extreme instances.

Quote:

I'm pretty sure I've heard somewhere that even such things as price changes and travel distances influence usage of abortion. Le sigh

You libertarians :o

Watch as Minx comes to the sudden and disturbing realization that life is not fair.
05-17-2011, 03:16 PM
Loki

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessus

We won the World Championship in ice hockey. Semi-finals against Russia, final match against Sweden. Let's just say the whole nation has been...Pre-occupied.

:up:
05-17-2011, 05:23 PM
Aimless

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Absolutely Minx. Things like costs, national debt, and how these services are magically provided are all very abstract concepts, and not rooted in reality what-so-ever.

Wait, you're saying that your position on state sponsorship of eg. planned parenthood, abortions, etc is rooted in worries about the national debt? How much do those things cost? You reckon you can pay for them with like 0.01% of your military budget?

If cost is the issue then please also consider the gains. For example, every aborted baby represents one more person who won't burden society for 90 years with his slow brain, his criminal nature and his health problems.

Quote:

Government money is already barred from providing abortions, except in certain extreme instances.

Yes you can juggle the numbers and pretend that the government money is barred from providing abortions, but if state or federal money goes to the largest provider of abortions in your country then gummint money is paying for abortions. The only difference is that it's paying for them indirectly.

Quote:

Watch as Minx comes to the sudden and disturbing realization that life is not fair.

It's not a revelation to me. What puzzles me is that some people revel in the unfairness and seem hell bent on increasing it. I don't really have any interest in enabling people to farm more nobility points at the expense of, you know, people's futures. That would be utterly corrupt.
05-17-2011, 05:59 PM
Enoch the Red

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aimless

Wait, you're saying that your position on state sponsorship of eg. planned parenthood, abortions, etc is rooted in worries about the national debt? How much do those things cost? You reckon you can pay for them with like 0.01% of your military budget?

If cost is the issue then please also consider the gains. For example, every aborted baby represents one more person who won't burden society for 90 years with his slow brain, his criminal nature and his health problems.

I certainly don't view children, or life like that. Nor do you.

Quote:

Yes you can juggle the numbers and pretend that the government money is barred from providing abortions, but if state or federal money goes to the largest provider of abortions in your country then gummint money is paying for abortions. The only difference is that it's paying for them indirectly.

Thus validating the claim abortion opponents have been making all along.

Quote:

It's not a revelation to me. What puzzles me is that some people revel in the unfairness and seem hell bent on increasing it. I don't really have any interest in enabling people to farm more nobility points at the expense of, you know, people's futures. That would be utterly corrupt.

Somehow I don't think the government not funding a group that uses private money to subsidize abortions indicates any such desire.
05-17-2011, 06:03 PM
Veldan Rath

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aimless

Yes you can juggle the numbers and pretend that the government money is barred from providing abortions, but if state or federal money goes to the largest provider of abortions in your country then gummint money is paying for abortions. The only difference is that it's paying for them indirectly.

Can't wait to see you and GGT square that point to each others satisfaction.
05-17-2011, 06:30 PM
GGT

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

That may be, but even if they did that does not mean the government is interfering with a woman's reproductive rights. Unless you believe those rights are guaranteed by Planned Parenthood, and Planned Parenthood alone.

Indiana's lawmakers are interfering with reproductive rights by limiting access and availability for non-abortive care. They're also interfering in the patient/physician relationship (violation of HIPPA laws?), legislating how doctors practice medicine, with a religious-based "script" they're mandated to recite to women, and bumping back viability by 4 weeks without any scientific or medical reasoning:

Quote:

In what might very well be an alarming precedent, Indiana has become the first state in the nation to successfully manage (at least temporarily) to defund Planned Parenthood. The new legislation put forth last Tuesday by Gov. Mitch Daniels (Republican, unsurprisingly) would cut off all Medicaid funding for the lately much maligned organization, while also requiring doctors to state to those patients seeking abortions that life begins at conception and that a fetus can feel pain around 20 weeks (neither of which, it should be noted, are considered to be fact). Performing any abortions after 20 weeks would now be illegal.

All said, Planned Parenthood of Indiana would stand to lose about $1.5 million in funding, and the potential closure of nearly half the state’s 28 clinics, while also jeopardizing the care of at least 9,300 Medicaid patients—some of the state’s poorest and neediest. They’d also amass the nation’s most extreme and tyrannical rules on abortion in the process—rules that the ACLU and Planned Parenthood are calling out as misleading and irrelevant. (Senator Kyl, anyone?)

Planned Parenthood immediately filed a restraining order with the U.S. District Court in Indianapolis challenging the constitutionality of such a law. According to the Indianapolis Star, the suit argues that “the law imposes an unconstitutional condition on Planned Parenthood by requiring it to choose between performing abortions and receiving non-abortion-related funding, and says that the measure runs afoul of federal Medicaid law.”

http://thefastertimes.com/politics/2...he-presidency/

Tack on losing $4 million in federal grants dedicated to Family Planning and education. They may also violate Title X which states government can't choose medical care or facilities for Medicaid patients (ie, that's a role for physicians, not elected officials). And that's just Indiana!

Kansas is also pushing legislation that will interfere with physicians' prescription abilities, and women's choices, by treating RU-486 as an abortion procedure, instead of a medication.

Quote:

The law comes with new rules for administering abortion-inducing medications, such as RU-486. Only a licensed physician will be allowed to provide the drug, in the presence of the patient. Clinics won't be allowed to dispense such drugs to patients at far-away sites through telemedicine systems.

Not limited to Planned Parenthood, by the way.

Quote:

Kansas' three abortion clinics are in the Kansas City metropolitan area. A Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri clinic and the Center for Women's Health are both in Overland Park, and the Aid for Women clinic is in Kansas City, Kan.

Added requirements for facility exits and hospital privileges are aimed directly at what amounts to a practical "ban" on a legal medical procedure. Again, not limited to PP.

Quote:

Jeff Pederson, the Aid for Women clinic's administrator, said it will be forced to spend $10,000 immediately on a new exit mandated by the law.
He said a requirement that physicians at a clinic have privileges with a hospital within 30 miles is problematic because anti-abortion groups pressure hospitals into revoking or not granting such privileges.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43057201/

Need more proof how local and state lawmakers are hell bent on a proxy-ban of abortion (or any misconception they have about abortion or tax-payer funds) that will affect women's non-abortion health needs? These guys are particularly scary sounding good ole boy type, trying to legislate medicine-by-religion:

Quote:

The commission’s first vote to reject the grant for family planning services came after a misunderstanding over terminology.

Before the first vote, McClure asked Barnes if the Health Department dispensed RU 486, sometimes called the “abortion pill.” It is used by prescription to terminate pregnancies in the first seven weeks after conception.

McClure referred to it “the morning-after pill,” and Barnes told him the morning-after pill is not the same as RU 486. The morning-after pill is another form of birth control and does not terminate pregnancy, she said. The department uses the morning-after pill but not RU 486, she said.

“We do not give the abortion pill,” Barnes told commissioners, who then voted to table the grant while seeking more information.

Jeff Teague, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Middle and East Tennessee, called the commission’s actions “shocking.”

“I think it’s kind of shocking they are willing to put the health of thousands of women in Hamilton County in jeopardy over their misunderstanding of what the morning-after pill is,” he said.

The commission’s concerns about the family planning program are recent.

Nearly 4,000 local women used the program in 2010, said Diana Kreider, program manager for the health department. It is funded from federal grants and includes a $40,000 local match.

Barnes and other health department officials said funding has been approved routinely without fanfare since the 1970s.

“I’ve never been asked these questions,” Barnes said.

Beck urged commissioners not to be swayed by “ideology.”’

McClure denied any such motive.

“My questioning and my negative vote has nothing to do with political ideology,” he said. “It has to do with my belief that every child is a human being ... at any point of conception.”

Commissioner Fred Skillern said he doesn’t want to vote for anything “controversial” in a tough budget year. Commissioner Joe Graham also had moral concerns about the program.

“I don’t believe God makes a mistake when he creates a baby,” Graham said.

[edit--not sure why my paste shows up with those asterisks :noob: It's http:// timesfreepress.com/news/2011/may/05/hamilton-county-eyes-blocking-family-planning-fund/ without the space after // ]

Quote:

No, instead you said that Indiana was knocking down abortion rights, and restricting a woman's right to birth control and abortions, and is doing so by removing funding from Planned Parenthood.

Yes, this "knock-down on abortions" ALSO restricts women's access to reproductive health services and birth control. Notice that word "and" between birth control AND abortions? Again, not limited to Planned Parenthood.

Now, it's your turn to explain how this is NOT the picture of legislators over-reaching, abusing their power, contradicting federal laws, using their religious beliefs to draft public policy.....while interfering in the private lives of women, to their detriment and harm.
05-17-2011, 06:59 PM
GGT

Quote:

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

Can't wait to see you and GGT square that point to each others satisfaction.

Minx isn't really familiar with how our system works, or why. Roe v Wade led to Planned Parenthood v Casey (meaning restrictive add-ons and definitions by states).

When people say "federal funds" they're conflating several things. Patients using Medicaid are subsidized by federal and matching state funds. Providers who care for Medicaid patients bill government agencies for reimbursement. Federal Grants are given to states for Family Planning, reproductive education, facility upgrades. Non-profit groups have special tax categories and tax deductions.

But we don't have standardized or comprehensive national data collection for "numbers of abortions provided" to compare apples-to-apples. Private physicians are known to code pregnancy termination as D & C procedures, particularly in states where stalking physicians and picketing their offices and homes is common, and states trying to also ban private insurance from covering abortions.

For the super-duper pedantic anal-retentive folks, "indirect" payment would also mean their Local Jiffy Lube is using their money for an oil change to subsidize another car getting a transmission overhaul in the next bay. :rolleyes:
05-17-2011, 07:11 PM
Aimless

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

I certainly don't view children, or life like that. Nor do you.

There's nothing monstrous about having a multifaceted view of the issues here. It's certainly not more monstrous than some of the opinions I've seen made here about the unemployed, the poor, the ignorant, etc.

Anyway, don't worry, they're not real children :o

Quote:

Thus validating the claim abortion opponents have been making all along.

It was true long before I said it. The distinction makes it easier for some people, which I reckon i a good thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

Can't wait to see you and GGT square that point to each others satisfaction.

We're used to disagreeing. My guess is that if she's expressed a different opinion on this matter it's been with the obvious motive of defending such funding against assault, lifewashing if you will. There are other ways to help people come to terms with this sort of thing. After all, tax money goes towards very many things, and we all find some of those things to be abominable. And yet most of us can agree to pay taxes and soothe our consciences eg. by telling ourselves that "my money goes towards killing arabs and NOT towards providing healthcare for the needy."
05-17-2011, 07:49 PM
Nessus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Because I think you have a good mind and would have interesting views on the issue, but you were just being facetious in the opening post. I just want to know if you think there are cases where someone can refuse entry to a police officer. Not sure why this is like pulling teeth.

Teeth are wondrous things, if you only knew...

Anyhow, this was specifically about unlawful police entry. If someone barges in at 3 am, yelling and possibly wielding weapons, what do you think will happen when the home-owner has guns of their own? In a nation where prisons are a for-profit industry, you can bet your red-haired ass I want those home owners to be protected from retribution.
05-17-2011, 07:52 PM
Veldan Rath

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessus

Teeth are wondrous things, if you only knew...

Anyhow, this was specifically about unlawful police entry. If someone barges in at 3 am, yelling and possibly wielding weapons, what do you think will happen when the home-owner has guns of their own? In a nation where prisons are a for-profit industry, you can bet your red-haired ass I want those home owners to be protected from retribution.

How delightfully lobertarian of you. :p
05-17-2011, 07:53 PM
GGT

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aimless

We're used to disagreeing. My guess is that if she's expressed a different opinion on this matter it's been with the obvious motive of defending such funding against assault, lifewashing if you will. There are other ways to help people come to terms with this sort of thing. After all, tax money goes towards very many things, and we all find some of those things to be abominable. And yet most of us can agree to pay taxes and soothe our consciences eg. by telling ourselves that "my money goes towards killing arabs and NOT towards providing healthcare for the needy."

:up: Yeah, I can't choose which parts of "my" tax dollars go toward funding our military complex, crazy foreign interventions, or undeclared Wars I don't support. :(

The politicking of this really bugs me. The nerve of GOP legislators claiming they're generally champions of "small, efficient, cost-effective, un-obtrusive government, and individual freeeedoms".....running on platforms focusing like a laser beam on our economy and jobs.....only to enter office and make this type of social conservatism their first priority. It's hypocritical and counter-productive. 'Pro-life' my patootie. :sour:
05-17-2011, 07:55 PM
Nessus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

How delightfully lobertarian of you. :p

*shrugs* I view it as defending the poor worker from the interests of high capital. It's a thorny thing because it has to be decided after the fact; if cops do come in legally, then the home-owner shooting them is guilty of a crime of some manner, and needs to be punished. So how is the guy woken up at 3 am supposed to know? If anything, I guess it's an argument against going in with force v. showing a warrant in a respectful manner unless you know you're going into a nasty situation.
05-17-2011, 07:59 PM
GGT

Finland protects homeowner's rights to keep intruders at bay, whether it's "unlawful police" or hobos breaking into cabins looking for shit. Wasn't there a Finnish story about a bear trap set under a window, and the intruder got his legs amputated (or was found dead in the trap) or something? Nessie...?
05-17-2011, 08:00 PM
Nessus

Quote:

Originally Posted by GGT

Finland protects homeowner's rights to keep intruders at bay, whether it's "unlawful police" or hobos breaking into cabins looking for shit. Wasn't there a Finnish story about a bear trap set under a window, and the intruder got his legs amputated (or was found dead in the trap) or something? Nessie...?

That's a story I've shared on the forums a few times. But that was in the 60s.

And it was his head, not a leg.
05-17-2011, 08:04 PM
GGT

Finland didn't create laws preventing bear traps under windows, after the intruder's family sued the homeowner for xyz, though. Did they? ;)
05-17-2011, 08:07 PM
Veldan Rath

Quote:

Originally Posted by GGT

:up: Yeah, I can't choose which parts of "my" tax dollars go toward funding our military complex, crazy foreign interventions, or undeclared Wars I don't support. :(

The politicking of this really bugs me. The nerve of GOP legislators claiming they're generally champions of "small, efficient, cost-effective, un-obtrusive government, and individual freeeedoms".....running on platforms focusing like a laser beam on our economy and jobs.....only to enter office and make this type of social conservatism their first priority. It's hypocritical and counter-productive. 'Pro-life' my patootie. :sour:

Where I agree with you: The GOP getting stupid in the head when: They run on fiscal issues grabs the indie vote, then take the opportunity to shot themselves in the foot by jumping on the social issues. Sending the Indies screaming away from them. It's a loser for them, time and time again, as the social ball moves forward. Who ever the hell is advising these nitwits needs a crubstomp ASAP.

Where I disagree with you: You can't impact where the tax dollars go to the things you don't like. For the prior 2 years a significant amount (I hear it's called a majority) of the idiots in charge had D's after their names. They could have gone after the military et al. But they chose not too.

We are in a financial lurch, things (everything) needs to be cut. The GOP should just keep is simple. Cut spending to 2007-8 levels (at least) and freeze it. With that, a tax increase could be swallowed.
05-17-2011, 09:02 PM
GGT

Quote:

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

Where I agree with you: The GOP getting stupid in the head when: They run on fiscal issues grabs the indie vote, then take the opportunity to shot themselves in the foot by jumping on the social issues. Sending the Indies screaming away from them. It's a loser for them, time and time again, as the social ball moves forward. Who ever the hell is advising these nitwits needs a crubstomp ASAP.

**Where I disagree with you: You can't impact where the tax dollars go to the things you don't like. For the prior 2 years a significant amount (I hear it's called a majority) of the idiots in charge had D's after their names. They could have gone after the military et al. But they chose not too.**

We are in a financial lurch, things (everything) needs to be cut. The GOP should just keep is simple. Cut spending to 2007-8 levels (at least) and freeze it. With that, a tax increase could be swallowed.

** = That's actually you disagreeing with our legislator bone-headedness, regardless of political party. So we actually agree, our lawmakers are bone heads. :)

I actually don't think EVERYTHING needs to be cut/reduced. We have plenty of redundancies and waste that could be completely chopped off first, before things that are actually valuable and working fairly well are hampered by less funding. IMO that means to continue funding orgs like PP, perhaps funding them even more....while cutting or merging duplicate services in things like forestry/fishing/wildlife/national park management.
05-17-2011, 09:05 PM
Loki

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessus

*shrugs* I view it as defending the poor worker from the interests of high capital. It's a thorny thing because it has to be decided after the fact; if cops do come in legally, then the home-owner shooting them is guilty of a crime of some manner, and needs to be punished. So how is the guy woken up at 3 am supposed to know? If anything, I guess it's an argument against going in with force v. showing a warrant in a respectful manner unless you know you're going into a nasty situation.

So it wouldn't be a problem in a socialist state? :noob:
05-18-2011, 12:18 AM
Enoch the Red

Quote:

Originally Posted by GGT

Indiana's lawmakers are interfering with reproductive rights by limiting access and availability for non-abortive care. They're also interfering in the patient/physician relationship (violation of HIPPA laws?), legislating how doctors practice medicine, with a religious-based "script" they're mandated to recite to women, and bumping back viability by 4 weeks without any scientific or medical reasoning:

By not funding a free clinic in Terre Haute or Gary, are they also interfering with reproductive rights? Rights aren't interfered with by inaction, GGT. No one has a right to easily accessible and available care when/wherever they want it. You want to take issue with the script or bumping back viability, I'd agree with you that it's an overreach, but claiming that rights are being restricted/interfered with because they aren't being funded by the government is wrong.

Quote:

Added requirements for facility exits and hospital privileges are aimed directly at what amounts to a practical "ban" on a legal medical procedure. Again, not limited to PP.

I wouldn't say they amount to a ban, but I would disagree with making them a requirement. A hospital should, however, be able to choose what operations it does or does not perform.

Quote:

Need more proof how local and state lawmakers are hell bent on a proxy-ban of abortion (or any misconception they have about abortion or tax-payer funds) that will affect women's non-abortion health needs? These guys are particularly scary sounding good ole boy type, trying to legislate medicine-by-religion:

Scary, yes. Would I vote for them? Absolutely not. Well within their rights? Yes ma'am. Again, there should be no absolute guarantees to governmental funding.

Quote:

Yes, this "knock-down on abortions" ALSO restricts women's access to reproductive health services and birth control. Notice that word "and" between birth control AND abortions? Again, not limited to Planned Parenthood.

Now, it's your turn to explain how this is NOT the picture of legislators over-reaching, abusing their power, contradicting federal laws, using their religious beliefs to draft public policy.....while interfering in the private lives of women, to their detriment and harm.

Legislators certainly do overreach, I would not disagree with that. It certainly sounds like they are doing so in this instance. That being said, I certainly do disagree with the claim that defunding a program is akin to an infringement on a right.
05-18-2011, 01:19 AM
GGT

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

By not funding a free clinic in Terre Haute or Gary, are they also interfering with reproductive rights? Rights aren't interfered with by inaction, GGT. No one has a right to easily accessible and available care when/wherever they want it. You want to take issue with the script or bumping back viability, I'd agree with you that it's an overreach, but claiming that rights are being restricted/interfered with because they aren't being funded by the government is wrong.

You've totally missed what I've been saying about the funding and access connections. :(

....claiming that rights are being restricted/interfered with because they aren't being funded by the government is wrong.

I don't know how many other links or quotes I can post to show you how wrong you are. No worries, though. As things stand, between all the states trying to pass anti-abortion, anti-birth control, anti-women legislation.....this will go on and play out for everyone to see. In plain view.

metaphors between rights to arms and rights to personal bodies don't usually translate very well, but I'll try:

What good is a "Right" if it can't be fulfilled due to lawmakers orchestrating their own moral preferences? Guns are not equivalent to birth control; the right to arms is not the same as the right to birth control......but what would you say if several states, one by one and cascading across the country, for religious or moral reasons, legislate banning bullets. Any kind of ammo, for any weapon, for any reason. Skeet shooting, target shooting, home defense---it doesn't matter. You just can't buy ammo now. Oh sure, you can buy all the guns you want, but your guns are limited (or worthless) without ammo. Can't drive to the next state, can't buy on-line, no access to ammo. None. Nada.

How many hoops should you have to jump in order to make your legal weapon functional? ..... you get the point.

Quote:

I wouldn't say they amount to a ban, but I would disagree with making them a requirement. A hospital should, however, be able to choose what operations it does or does not perform.

Scary, yes. Would I vote for them? Absolutely not. Well within their rights? Yes ma'am. Again, there should be no absolute guarantees to governmental funding.

Your former and latter sentences are at odds with each other. And dang if you don't keep coming back to "funding" instead of ethics. :donkey:

Quote:

Legislators certainly do overreach, I would not disagree with that. It certainly sounds like they are doing so in this instance. That being said, I certainly do disagree with the claim that defunding a program is akin to an infringement on a right.

Time for you provide some proof to back up your opinion. No more name calling, personal digs, asking others to defend their view when it conflicts with yours. Time for you to show how private organizations or charities can fulfill the health needs of ALL women in Indiana, Kansas, the Dakotas, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Florida, Nevada....etc. Medicaid patients need not apply. Forget older women on Medicare. If states get their way....exclude anyone with employer-subsidized health insurance, too.

In that environment, under those conditions, what woman could possibly receive the medical care she needs?
05-18-2011, 02:52 AM
Enoch the Red

Quote:

Originally Posted by GGT

You've totally missed what I've been saying about the funding and access connections. :(

I haven't missed it, I just don't believe that funding and access can only be provided by the government and government assistance.

Quote:

I don't know how many other links or quotes I can post to show you how wrong you are. No worries, though. As things stand, between all the states trying to pass anti-abortion, anti-birth control, anti-women legislation.....this will go on and play out for everyone to see. In plain view.

And I'll happily vote against them, and the people that would enact them. What I won't do is claim that Planned Parenthood, or any other private organization, has a right to tax dollars.

Quote:

What good is a "Right" if it can't be fulfilled due to lawmakers orchestrating their own moral preferences?

Rights also aren't guarantees. I do have a right to keep and bear arms, but that right is not guaranteed everywhere I want to go. I can't carry on an airplane, or into a court house, or in states that don't practice reciprocity.

There are over a million abortions performed each year. The average abortion, if caught early, costs somewhere around $450 dollars.

Focusing strictly on the money, (the only horse I have in the race) these are not cost prohibitive numbers for individuals or organizations.

The real crime is that you believe a private business/lobbying group has a right to the government coffers. Shame on you. I thought you advocated against crony capitalism.

Quote:

Guns are not equivalent to birth control; the right to arms is not the same as the right to birth control......but what would you say if several states, one by one and cascading across the country, for religious or moral reasons, legislate banning bullets. Any kind of ammo, for any weapon, for any reason. Skeet shooting, target shooting, home defense---it doesn't matter. You just can't buy ammo now. Oh sure, you can buy all the guns you want, but your guns are limited (or worthless) without ammo. Can't drive to the next state, can't buy on-line, no access to ammo. None. Nada.

How many hoops should you have to jump in order to make your legal weapon functional? ..... you get the point.

You are conflating several disparate actions here, several of which I don't agree with, with one that I do.

The only passable comparison in your metaphor would be comparing birth control to ammunition, and never once have I claimed to support governmental restrictions on birth control.

A more apt comparison to what I have actually taken issue with, would be me complaining that the government subsidy that gun stores have been receiving to sell me guns is not being renewed next year, but even that metaphor is problematic. The most accurate comparison would be that holsters, which have been subsidized for years, are no longer being subsidized, which has no impact what so ever on my rights to buy, own, or operate firearms.

Does that give me grounds to complain about firearms being restricted needlessly?

Quote:

Your former and latter sentences are at odds with each other. And dang if you don't keep coming back to "funding" instead of ethics. :donkey:

How so?

Funding, in this case, is ethics, GGT.

Quote:

Time for you provide some proof to back up your opinion. No more name calling, personal digs, asking others to defend their view when it conflicts with yours. Time for you to show how private organizations or charities can fulfill the health needs of ALL women in Indiana, Kansas, the Dakotas, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Florida, Nevada....etc. Medicaid patients need not apply. Forget older women on Medicare. If states get their way....exclude anyone with employer-subsidized health insurance, too.

In that environment, under those conditions, what woman could possibly receive the medical care she needs?

Private organizations or charities don't have to fulfill all the health needs of ALL women, everywhere. In fact, no private organization or government/publicly funded group can claim to meet that requirement. Not here, not in Canada, not in Socialist Scandahoovia.
05-18-2011, 06:12 AM
Nessus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loki

So it wouldn't be a problem in a socialist state? :noob:

I'm not a fan of Berija either.
05-18-2011, 06:32 AM
Loki

Let's assume it's the kind of socialist state you'd like.
05-18-2011, 06:41 AM
Nessus

Why? I was responding to Dread's question (and expanding on it after Vel's poke) about this specific situation. How this should segway into a debate on the unicorn masticatory apparatus, I can't quite fathom.
05-18-2011, 02:15 PM
Loki

Because it kind of goes against your whole spiel about empowering the government and letting it "take care" of the population. Why be fearful of the police in a socialist state?
05-18-2011, 03:56 PM
Khendraja'aro

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loki

Because it kind of goes against your whole spiel about empowering the government and letting it "take care" of the population. Why be fearful of the police in a socialist state?

Because there's a difference between a guest in a hotel and an inmate inside a prison? Both are cared for - and yet you try to make it look like both are the same.
05-18-2011, 04:02 PM
Loki

Except the police is the state's apparatus of social control. If you trust the state, why would you believe it would allow this apparatus to act unjustly?

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page