Real Family Values

[David_42]

How are you defining a baby? Let's look at some numbers:
"
In 2011, 730,322 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. The abortion rate was 13.9 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years and the abortion ratio was 219 abortions per 1,000 live births.

Compared with 2010, the total number and rate of reported abortions for 2011 decreased 5%, and the abortion ratio decreased 4%. Additionally, from 2002 to 2011 the number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions decreased 13%, 14%, and 12%, respectively. The large decreases in the total number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions from 2010 to 2011, in combination with decreases that occurred during 2008–2010, resulted in historic lows for all three measures of abortion.

Women in their twenties accounted for the majority of abortions in 2011 and throughout the period of analysis. The majority of abortions in 2011 took place early in gestation. In 2011, most abortions (91.4%) were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (7.3%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (1.4%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation.
"
Is a zygote a baby?

Hey, you'll get no argument from me about the rate of abortion decreasing.

Would you approve the funding of half a billion a year if it reduced abortions by 40% a year?

Yes or no?

Haha. I know you're trying to be sly and play gotcha. Only 40 percent? If we could go for 90 percent, I'd be in.

Nothing sly about it.

A study using long acting contraceptives (larcs) for teens likely to become pregnant had an 80% success rate at reducing abortions. The only problem is that larcs are more expensive than regular contraceptives but they are more effective.

It would only cost half a billion to roll that out nationwide and since pregnant teens are responsible for 51% of all abortions reducing that by 80% would mean an overall reduction of 40%.

That would be between 400,000 and 500,000 fewer abortions per year.

It would also mean that these same teens would be able to complete their schooling and become productive members of the workforce.

Yes, the goal is to reach 90% if we can but this would be a great way to start IMO.

So are you in or do you believe that banning abortion is going to stop abortions from actually happening?

No, I do not believe that banning will stop abortions from happening. But, I also do not believe in the state giving its blessings to end a human life that can't even defend itself.

You sure loved them underground abortions, eh?

 

[Derideo_Te]

How are you defining a baby? Let's look at some numbers:
"
In 2011, 730,322 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. The abortion rate was 13.9 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years and the abortion ratio was 219 abortions per 1,000 live births.

Compared with 2010, the total number and rate of reported abortions for 2011 decreased 5%, and the abortion ratio decreased 4%. Additionally, from 2002 to 2011 the number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions decreased 13%, 14%, and 12%, respectively. The large decreases in the total number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions from 2010 to 2011, in combination with decreases that occurred during 2008–2010, resulted in historic lows for all three measures of abortion.

Women in their twenties accounted for the majority of abortions in 2011 and throughout the period of analysis. The majority of abortions in 2011 took place early in gestation. In 2011, most abortions (91.4%) were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (7.3%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (1.4%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation.
"
Is a zygote a baby?

Hey, you'll get no argument from me about the rate of abortion decreasing.

Would you approve the funding of half a billion a year if it reduced abortions by 40% a year?

Yes or no?

Haha. I know you're trying to be sly and play gotcha. Only 40 percent? If we could go for 90 percent, I'd be in.

Nothing sly about it.

A study using long acting contraceptives (larcs) for teens likely to become pregnant had an 80% success rate at reducing abortions. The only problem is that larcs are more expensive than regular contraceptives but they are more effective.

It would only cost half a billion to roll that out nationwide and since pregnant teens are responsible for 51% of all abortions reducing that by 80% would mean an overall reduction of 40%.

That would be between 400,000 and 500,000 fewer abortions per year.

It would also mean that these same teens would be able to complete their schooling and become productive members of the workforce.

Yes, the goal is to reach 90% if we can but this would be a great way to start IMO.

So are you in or do you believe that banning abortion is going to stop abortions from actually happening?

No, I do not believe that banning will stop abortions from happening. But, I also do not believe in the state giving its blessings to end a human life that can't even defend itself.

So you are not willing to spend what is little more than a rounding error in the federal budget to eliminate 40% of abortions?

This funding is not going FOR abortions but to PREVENT abortions.

Isn't that exactly in line with your conservative values?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Hey, you'll get no argument from me about the rate of abortion decreasing.

Would you approve the funding of half a billion a year if it reduced abortions by 40% a year?

Yes or no?

Haha. I know you're trying to be sly and play gotcha. Only 40 percent? If we could go for 90 percent, I'd be in.

Nothing sly about it.

A study using long acting contraceptives (larcs) for teens likely to become pregnant had an 80% success rate at reducing abortions. The only problem is that larcs are more expensive than regular contraceptives but they are more effective.

It would only cost half a billion to roll that out nationwide and since pregnant teens are responsible for 51% of all abortions reducing that by 80% would mean an overall reduction of 40%.

That would be between 400,000 and 500,000 fewer abortions per year.

It would also mean that these same teens would be able to complete their schooling and become productive members of the workforce.

Yes, the goal is to reach 90% if we can but this would be a great way to start IMO.

So are you in or do you believe that banning abortion is going to stop abortions from actually happening?

No, I do not believe that banning will stop abortions from happening. But, I also do not believe in the state giving its blessings to end a human life that can't even defend itself.

You sure loved them underground abortions, eh?

Nope, didn't like those or state approved.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ah yes, sanders and his support for abortion, selling of baby organs and so on. Yep, that's some genuine family value.

The propensity of you and most others on the right to lie is another example of republican 'values.'

 

[jwoodie]

Because that would mean that ObamaCare providing contraceptives to women is succeeding at reducing abortions, right?

Is reducing abortions a good thing? If so, why? Try thinking before posting.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Because that would mean that ObamaCare providing contraceptives to women is succeeding at reducing abortions, right?

Is reducing abortions a good thing? If so, why? Try thinking before posting.

I already provided the reasons.

Why don't you try posting something of actual substance to support your position?

Or don't you have any substance?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

So you are not willing to spend what is little more than a rounding error in the federal budget to eliminate 40% of abortions?

This funding is not going FOR abortions but to PREVENT abortions.

Isn't that exactly in line with your conservative values?

It's one of the defining stereotypes—a ridiculous cliché—of left wrong-wing ideology, that it sees the solution to every problem as being more government intrusion, more government spending, more taxation to pay for it;and if someone doesn't agree to the overbearing government “solution” to a problem, then one must not agree that the problem should be addressed at all.

It often seems, in fact, that the problem that a particular government action is supposed to address is secondary, to the excuse to get government somehow more deeply involved in people's lives.

The issue that it is government's duty to address here is one of simple criminal justice—the unjustifiable killing of innocent human beings. No need for any great government program to figure out why some people kill other people without just cause. All that we need government to do is to permanently remove these killers from free society, in accordance with proper due process of law.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So you are not willing to spend what is little more than a rounding error in the federal budget to eliminate 40% of abortions?

This funding is not going FOR abortions but to PREVENT abortions.

Isn't that exactly in line with your conservative values?

It's one of the defining stereotypes—a ridiculous cliché—of left wrong-wing ideology, that it sees the solution to every problem as being more government intrusion, more government spending, more taxation to pay for it;and if someone doesn't agree to the overbearing government “solution” to a problem, then one must not agree that the problem should be addressed at all.

It often seems, in fact, that the problem that a particular government action is supposed to address is secondary, to the excuse to get government somehow more deeply involved in people's lives.

The issue that it is government's duty to address here is one of simple criminal justice—the unjustifiable killing of innocent human beings. No need for any great government program to figure out why some people kill other people without just cause. All that we need government to do is to permanently remove these killers from free society, in accordance with proper due process of law.

So your "solution" is to put 1+ million women in prison for life each and every year?

And how much bigger will government have to become in order to manage an ever growing prison population?

Who is going to care for the children they leave behind when you incarcerate their mothers? How much bigger will government have to become to feed, house and educate these children?

Or are you like all of the other anti-abortion zealots and incapable of thinking through what imposing your un-American zealotry will do to society?

 

[ninja007]

Sanders has his priorities straight when it comes to family.
Real Family Values

When my Republican colleagues mention “family values,” they’re usually talking about opposition to contraception, denying a woman’s right to choose, or opposition to gay rights.

Real family values strengthen the bonds of family and improve the lives of our families. When it comes to these values, our country deserves better.

We are the only major nation in the world that doesn’t guarantee paid time off for new parents. Of 182 nations that do provide paid leave for this purpose, more than half guarantee at least 14 weeks off.

We are the only one of 22 wealthy nations that does not guarantee some type of paid sick leave, and the only one that does not provide paid sick leave for a worker undergoing a 50-day cancer treatment.

We are the only advanced economy, and one of only 13 nations in the entire world, that doesn’t guarantee workers a paid vacation.

The truth is that we lag behind other developed countries in many of the policies that bring working families together. That’s wrong. It’s a travesty. And it should be an embarrassment to anyone who claims to speak for family values in this country.
/QUOTE]

Sanders is making some great points and yes, he is absolutely right about the difference between faux family values and genuine ones that make a difference in the lives of everyday people.

The right will always whine about the cost of these programs while ignoring the fact that when employers provide these benefits they build up a loyal workforce that will go the extra mile for their employers who do provide these benefits. It is hard to put a price on that benefit but it is real.

Then again, why put a price tag on genuine family values?

Doesn't that devalue them?

Time for the GOP to stop the scrooge obstruction of these family values or it will never regain the all important female votes it needs to win the Whitehouse.

you mean the family values libs are famous for?

 

[ninja007]

So you are not willing to spend what is little more than a rounding error in the federal budget to eliminate 40% of abortions?

This funding is not going FOR abortions but to PREVENT abortions.

Isn't that exactly in line with your conservative values?

It's one of the defining stereotypes—a ridiculous cliché—of left wrong-wing ideology, that it sees the solution to every problem as being more government intrusion, more government spending, more taxation to pay for it;and if someone doesn't agree to the overbearing government “solution” to a problem, then one must not agree that the problem should be addressed at all.

It often seems, in fact, that the problem that a particular government action is supposed to address is secondary, to the excuse to get government somehow more deeply involved in people's lives.

The issue that it is government's duty to address here is one of simple criminal justice—the unjustifiable killing of innocent human beings. No need for any great government program to figure out why some people kill other people without just cause. All that we need government to do is to permanently remove these killers from free society, in accordance with proper due process of law.

So your "solution" is to put 1+ million women in prison for life each and every year?

And how much bigger will government have to become in order to manage an ever growing prison population?

Who is going to care for the children they leave behind when you incarcerate their mothers? How much bigger will government have to become to feed, house and educate these children?

Or are you like all of the other anti-abortion zealots and incapable of thinking through what imposing your un-American zealotry will do to society?

you got no problem with cons taking care of millions of kids/babies that welfare moms have though...

 

[jwoodie]

I already provided the reasons.

Is this a deliberate falsehood, or are you merely suffering from dementia?

PROVE ME WRONG BY CITING YOUR ALLEGED POST.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

BOB BLAYLOCK SAID:

"It's one of the defining stereotypes—a ridiculous cliché—of left wrong-wing ideology, that it sees the solution to every problem as being more government intrusion, more government spending, more taxation to pay for it;and if someone doesn't agree to the overbearing government “solution” to a problem, then one must not agree that the problem should be addressed at all."

Incorrect.

This represents the conservative 'solution' to abortion: more government; increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

Rather than you and others on the right working to violate a woman's right to privacy, develop instead a solution to the problem of abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law, respecting the right to privacy.

 

[jwoodie]

Rather than you and others on the right working to violate a woman's right to privacy, develop instead a solution to the problem of abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law, respecting the right to privacy.

What "problem of abortion" are YOU referring to?

 

[Derideo_Te]

I already provided the reasons.

Is this a deliberate falsehood, or are you merely suffering from dementia?

PROVE ME WRONG BY CITING YOUR ALLEGED POST.

Sure, always a pleasure to prove you wrong.

Cite for post #36.

Real Family Values | Page 2 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Now where is your substantive response?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Rather than you and others on the right working to violate a woman's right to privacy, develop instead a solution to the problem of abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law, respecting the right to privacy.

What "problem of abortion" are YOU referring to?

That would be what you see in your mirror.

 

[hortysir]

There's a lot of things we don't do that other countries do.

That doesn't mean we're "lagging behind"

We're unique and exceptional

 

[Anathema]

The problem is that Democrats have an improper definition of a Family. They think it has everything to do with biology. In reality Family has as much to do with Morals as it does with DNA. A biological relative who has no Morals is not a member of my Family.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The problem is that Democrats have an improper definition of a Family. They think it has everything to do with biology. In reality Family has as much to do with Morals as it does with DNA. A biological relative who has no Morals is not a member of my Family.

Wrong.

The problem is conservatives try to limit what constitutes a family, seeking to compel conformity through force of law, as is consistent with the authoritarian right.

Families are much more than what most conservatives perceive them to be.

 

[Anathema]

The problem is conservatives try to limit what constitutes a family, seeking to compel conformity through force of law, as is consistent with the authoritarian right.

Families are much more than what most conservatives perceive them to be.

Conformity is the cornerstone of Society. Without it only Anarchy exists, as I see across this country on a daily basis.

A family must be as uniform in philosophy and Morality as it is in genetics, or Anarchy prevails.

 

[CowboyTed]

Abortion will never go away, it's a women's choice and her fucking uterus, get over it. The PP bullshit has been debunked, you idiots failed, this year has been a laughable disaster for you bigots.

Nope and nope. It's actually been a disaster for what 30 million plus babies. Remember....they had no choice. Keep that head down there deep in the sand though. Ive heard its blissful.

How are you defining a baby? Let's look at some numbers:
"
In 2011, 730,322 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. The abortion rate was 13.9 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years and the abortion ratio was 219 abortions per 1,000 live births.

Compared with 2010, the total number and rate of reported abortions for 2011 decreased 5%, and the abortion ratio decreased 4%. Additionally, from 2002 to 2011 the number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions decreased 13%, 14%, and 12%, respectively. The large decreases in the total number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions from 2010 to 2011, in combination with decreases that occurred during 2008–2010, resulted in historic lows for all three measures of abortion.

Women in their twenties accounted for the majority of abortions in 2011 and throughout the period of analysis. The majority of abortions in 2011 took place early in gestation. In 2011, most abortions (91.4%) were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (7.3%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (1.4%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation.
"
Is a zygote a baby?

Hey, you'll get no argument from me about the rate of abortion decreasing.

Why should you celebrate a reduction in the number of abortions? Think about it.

I'll never agree with willfull abortions.

Well no one is asking you to have one.