View Full Version : A World of Harm for Women
If Mitt Romney and his vice-presidential running mate, Representative Paul Ryan, were to win next month’s election, the harm to women’s reproductive rights would extend far beyond the borders of the United States.
In this country, they would support the recriminalization of abortion with the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and they would limit access to contraception and other services. But they have also promised to promote policies abroad that would affect millions of women in the world’s poorest countries, where lack of access to contraception, prenatal care and competent help at childbirth often results in serious illness and thousands of deaths yearly. And the wreckage would begin on Day 1 of a Romney administration.
Mr. Romney has pledged that, on his first day in the White House, he would reinstate the “global gag rule,” the odious restriction that has been used to deny federal money for family-planning work abroad to any organization that provided information, advice, referrals or services for legal abortion or supported the legalization of abortion, even using its own money.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/20/opinion/a-potential-world-of-harm-for-women.html
Note: October 19, 2012
AVGWarhawk
10-20-12, 08:20 PM
Opinion column. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Right or wrong.
Skybird
10-20-12, 08:32 PM
Opinion column. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Right or wrong.
What he has indeed announced he would do, is no opinion, but now historic fact you can quote from the archives. Question is whether or not there are powers fighting him from making his declared plans true.
AVGWarhawk
10-20-12, 09:22 PM
I'm lazy. Please site where Willard would do these things.
Takeda Shingen
10-20-12, 09:42 PM
Romney on Roe v Wade:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/08/romney-tries-to-reassure-socially-conservative-audience/
Romney on global gag rule, aka Mexico City Policy:
http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/political/mitt-romney-abortion-mexico-city-policy-comment-to-iowa-newspaper-draws-criticism
It's always about abortion with the neocons. They claim otherwise but it is always about social issues.
CaptainMattJ.
10-20-12, 10:48 PM
I'm lazy. Please site where Willard would do these things.
not to be rude, but had you been following any of his plans on the critical issues youd wouldnt need to ask that question, as he and the republican party (who honestly make romney a puppet, turning him from his more moderate stance years ago to the ideologies the republican party shares today) have said numerous times that they want to make any abortion illegal and cut any and all funding to planned parenthood and many organizations that promote contraception in people who dont want and cant care for children, especially teens.
Gerald if you keep posting those opinion pieces you should change your Subsim Newsman designation to "Subsim political shill"...:yep:
Betonov
10-21-12, 02:16 AM
Gerald if you keep posting those opinion pieces you should change your Subsim Newsman designation to "Subsim political shill"...:yep:
So if in your mind he's a (lefty) political shill, then that makes you a righty political shill :O:
Let him post those ''opinions''. It's his right to do so.
And one more thing, why don't you post some republican opinions if you think Vendor is biased, to even out the playing field
kraznyi_oktjabr
10-21-12, 03:01 AM
So if in your mind he's a (lefty) political shill, then that makes you a righty political shill :O:
Let him post those ''opinions''. It's his right to do so.
And one more thing, why don't you post some republican opinions if you think Vendor is biased, to even out the playing field:agree:
AVGWarhawk
10-21-12, 05:14 AM
not to be rude, but had you been following any of his plans on the critical issues youd wouldnt need to ask that question, as he and the republican party (who honestly make romney a puppet, turning him from his more moderate stance years ago to the ideologies the republican party shares today) have said numerous times that they want to make any abortion illegal and cut any and all funding to planned parenthood and many organizations that promote contraception in people who dont want and cant care for children, especially teens.
So don't be rude. Understand abortion is not a critical issue for me. Roe v Wade discussions and what any president or would be president has been used fordecades as a tool. In the sense that a candidate will spew out abolishing to energize his base to obtain support and nomination. Others use this piece of legislation to energize opposition to turn support away from a candidate. There is really nothing different here from decades past with the same questions, answers, themes and ideology. What a great time to throw out a article like this when the women's votes(polls) appear to be swinging Willard's way. See this article for what it is. Read what Take posted. Some issues are paramount to some where others are not. Abortion, getting rubbers to kids and making sure women have day after pills is not in the forefront of my concerns.
u crank
10-21-12, 06:08 AM
Smoke and mirrors. In the political game ears need to be tickled. Promises need to be made. It's nothing new. And it won't happen. Social policies, abortion, same sex marriage, etc., never go backwards. People just wouldn't stand for it. That's progress I guess.
Gerald if you keep posting those opinion pieces you should change your Subsim Newsman designation to "Subsim political shill"...:yep: The title Subsim Newsman, as Neal handed out for a "decent" time to go back, is a good title, since it refers to news updates, and by chance it will with the political moves, as well as it is about space or another in our everyday life, and with it, I would say that my posts are not intended to profess political color if there is one around here, which I think is, for example, leftists ..... our comitte built on independence.
So if in your mind he's a (lefty) political shill
No I do not, I just think he is has a problem differentiating between news and propaganda. Partisan opinion is not news.
And one more thing, why don't you post some republican opinions if you think Vendor is biased, to even out the playing field
I post my opinions all the time. I just don't pretend that they are "news". He claims to be a "SubSim Newsman", I do not. See the difference?
The title Subsim Newsman, as Neal handed out for a "decent" time to go back, is a good title, since it refers to news updates, and by chance it will with the political moves, as well as it is about space or another in our everyday life, and with it, I would say that my posts are not intended to profess political color if there is one around here, which I think is, for example, leftists ..... our comitte built on independence.
See my preceding post. You can't truthfully claim to be a newsman if you post propaganda Gerald.
See my preceding post. You can't truthfully claim to be a newsman if you post propaganda Gerald. Who said I do not know the difference between propaganda and news?,the entry is made when there is an opinion of,the newspaper.
Who said I do not know the difference between propaganda and news?,the entry is made when there is an opinion of,the newspaper.
Opinion is just that, opinion. It is not news.
gimpy117
10-21-12, 11:18 PM
Republicans complain about people on welfare having more welfare babies (actually we really all do) ....
....and then remove access to contraception
:hmmm:
but to me the moral standpoint of: I don't agree with it, so why do i need to pay for it?
well in that case can I not pay any of the debt for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars?
....and then remove access to contraception
Can you show where the Republicans have removed access to contraception?
There's a big difference between removing access and not being willing to pay for it.
gimpy117
10-22-12, 08:27 AM
not paying for it is pretty much removing access to the under privileged.
not paying for it is pretty much removing access to the under privileged.
The underprivileged do not require birth control in order to survive. Should we buy them cars and houses too?
AVGWarhawk
10-22-12, 09:48 AM
The underprivileged do not require birth control in order to survive. Should we buy them cars and houses too?
As far as cars and homes, well...there is program to turn in your old car. It is repaired and sold(very small price or possible free) to the needy. I will not say this program has been exploited yet as I have not investigated. As far as homes, section 8 housing. Very cheap or sometimes free. Food stamps. Free cell phones. So yes, let's toss in some condoms or morning after pills. The state of MD will go as far as paying your electric bill if you show just cause. Usually some trumped up hard luck case. I know, my near do well brother in law got his $1200.00 bill paid. Let's make a party of it. Free goods for all! :woot:
Betonov
10-22-12, 11:53 AM
Stupid people will breed like rabits.
I'd rather see €10 of my monthly taxes go for the pills than €200 for their large families. Or watch the news full of some poor sods that can't take care of their 12 kids.
AVGWarhawk
10-22-12, 12:04 PM
Or watch the news full of some poor sods that can't take care of their 12 kids.
That poor sod's problem(can't keep it in his pants) has now become my problem. Is it just me or is there a underlying problem here? I find little amusement in supporting someones 5 minutes of good time(resulting pregnancy) in the back of a car or wherever. Even with every contraception device known to man left in his wallet, under the sink, in his car or at the planned parenthood agency the end result is the same. The entire nation supporting the sod's indiscretions. In short, were does it stop? Why does society continue to pander to the nonsense? The problems are never fixed. The just offer another serviced that comes out of tax money.
Betonov
10-22-12, 12:07 PM
Lesser evil and all that jazz :shifty:
That poor sod's problem(can't keep it in his pants) has now become my problem. Is it just me or is there a underlying problem here? I find little amusement in supporting someones 5 minutes of good time(resulting pregnancy) in the back of a car or wherever. Even with every contraception device known to man left in his wallet, under the sink, in his car or at the planned parenthood agency the end result is the same. The entire nation supporting the sod's indiscretions. In short, were does it stop? Why does society continue to pander to the nonsense? The problems are never fixed. The just offer another serviced that comes out of tax money.
But then you could also be pragmatic about it - say your choice is giving the poor sod a few hundred dollars' worth of tax-subsidized pills, or thousands upon thousands of dollars in subsidies for supporting the kids. Or you don't support the kids, in which case there is a high chance that said kids will, without supervision, turn to gangs. That creates some serious problems for the average taxpayer. And then assuming the police do their job, said kids end up in jail, where they only cost more taxpayer money. And if you prefer shooting them on sight as an alternative, then you risk seriously eroding civil rights that your very society is founded on. I know this is a bit of a slippery slope, but either way the fact is that there is a direct link to far more serious social problems here, social problems that in one way or another will always cost you (or your fellow law-abiding, tax-paying citizen) something.
The problem is that "some sod's indiscretions" are, unfortunately, never just that sod's problem. That doesn't make him right to behave the way he does, but by virtue of living in a human society, you always end up paying in one way or another. And if you don't, somebody else pays in your stead. Sad maybe, but a fact.
So, you know, maybe those "free" pills aren't such a bad solution from a cost-effectiveness standpoint...
AVGWarhawk
10-23-12, 09:34 AM
But then you could also be pragmatic about it - say your choice is giving the poor sod a few hundred dollars' worth of tax-subsidized pills, or thousands upon thousands of dollars in subsidies for supporting the kids.
The sod is given pills and thousands of dollars for his kids. First problem, he has kids. He/she is not using the pill. Second problem, by and large the sod spends the money on anything but his kids. He can use the card for alcohol, cigarettes, lottery, gambling or a new pair if Air Jordan shoes. I have witnessed this type of spending at the cash registers. The sod can not be forced to take pills/condoms and use them. Nor can he be forced to spend money on his kids.
high chance that said kids will, without supervision, turn to gangs.
Welcome to absentee parenting. It had been a ongoing problem for decades.
That creates some serious problems for the average taxpayer.
That is a understatement of the highest degree.
And then assuming the police do their job, said kids end up in jail, where they only cost more taxpayer money.
You see a recurring theme here?
The problem is that "some sod's indiscretions" are, unfortunately, never just that sod's problem. That doesn't make him right to behave the way he does, but by virtue of living in a human society, you always end up paying in one way or another. And if you don't, somebody else pays in your stead. Sad maybe, but a fact.
Like Hillary Clinton said, "It takes a village to raise a child." Problem is, some of the villagers do not contribute back.
So, you know, maybe those "free" pills aren't such a bad solution from a cost-effectiveness standpoint...
Not if the sod is not using the pills and other contraceptives. Again, they are not forced to use contraceptives. However, I suspect there are quite a few that do utilize the program. I do not have the statistics. There is no clear cut answer to the issue at hand.
mookiemookie
10-23-12, 09:40 AM
But then you could also be pragmatic about it - say your choice is giving the poor sod a few hundred dollars' worth of tax-subsidized pills, or thousands upon thousands of dollars in subsidies for supporting the kids. Or you don't support the kids, in which case there is a high chance that said kids will, without supervision, turn to gangs. That creates some serious problems for the average taxpayer. And then assuming the police do their job, said kids end up in jail, where they only cost more taxpayer money. And if you prefer shooting them on sight as an alternative, then you risk seriously eroding civil rights that your very society is founded on. I know this is a bit of a slippery slope, but either way the fact is that there is a direct link to far more serious social problems here, social problems that in one way or another will always cost you (or your fellow law-abiding, tax-paying citizen) something.
The problem is that "some sod's indiscretions" are, unfortunately, never just that sod's problem. That doesn't make him right to behave the way he does, but by virtue of living in a human society, you always end up paying in one way or another. And if you don't, somebody else pays in your stead. Sad maybe, but a fact.
So, you know, maybe those "free" pills aren't such a bad solution from a cost-effectiveness standpoint...
Great points. Saves me from having to type them out.
You can try an idealist and bang the "personal responsibility" drum and watch the crime rate soar, or you can be a realist and invest a pittance into making birth control easily accessible to all. Easy choice to me.
AVGWarhawk
10-23-12, 09:52 AM
invest a pittance into making birth control easily accessible to all
Which is simply saying we tried. The problem still persists. There is more than mere pittance spent on birth control. It is the other items that subsidize these folk. The ones that make a career out of working the system. The rolls continue to swell.
You can try an idealist and bang the "personal responsibility" drum and watch the crime rate soar, or you can be a realist and invest a pittance into making birth control easily accessible to all.
And still watch the crime rate soar because birth control is not related to poverty or crime.
AVGWarhawk
10-23-12, 09:56 AM
And still watch the crime rate soar because birth control is not related to poverty or crime.
:yep:
mookiemookie
10-23-12, 10:10 AM
Which is simply saying we tried. The problem still persists. There is more than mere pittance spent on birth control. It is the other items that subsidize these folk. The ones that make a career out of working the system. The rolls continue to swell.
The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented. This is a classic example of black and white thinking, in which a person fails to see the complex interplay between multiple component elements of a situation or problem, and as a result, reduces complex problems to a pair of binary extremes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy#Perfect_solution_fallacy
And still watch the crime rate soar because birth control is not related to poverty or crime.
Source?
Because peer-reviewed academic research certainly suggests otherwise.
Examples:
http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittTheImpactOfLegalized2001.pdf
http://socserv.socsci.mcmaster.ca/bjerk/PublicPapers/AnindyaSen1.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/c7072230p7201016/
AVGWarhawk
10-23-12, 11:11 AM
Source?
Because peer-reviewed academic research certainly suggests otherwise.
Examples:
http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittTheImpactOfLegalized2001.pdf
http://socserv.socsci.mcmaster.ca/bjerk/PublicPapers/AnindyaSen1.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/c7072230p7201016/
CCIP,
These articles deal with abortion and crime. Is abortion a contraception device or form of birth control? Generally the pill, condoms, foam, IUD and the like are birth control. Abortion is after the fact. The birth was not controlled.
Besides in their attempt to prove their point they reject the more (to me) likely reasons for the drop in crime rates
IE
They have offered an array of explanations: the increasing use of incarceration, growth in the number of police, improved policing strategies such as those adopted in New York, declines in the crack cocaine trade, the strong economy, and increased expenditures on victim precautions such as security guards and alarms.
That's an awful lot to dismiss in favor of one single cause. Some of the things also not mentioned are gun control laws and social programs designed to help inner city youths.
Well, all of those articles address "reduction in fertility rates", and for two of them that's actually a central point. Reduction in fertility rates = the pill, in the vast majority of cases.
I'm not arguing for this as a magic and completely fair solution, by the way. But pragmatically, there is a connection between fertility rates, unwanted pregnancy, and crime rates. Now, I haven't found a cost-benefit analysis and I'd be curious about that - but I really suspect that at the end of the day, it is not a bad deal. As far as cost to society, more people on birth control is automatically more economical than the next-best options, including doing nothing.
What is possible to argue is that it's unfair and unethical to support something you don't agree with, and to pay for something that you believe people should be providing for themselves. The ethical argument for not paying other people to have more sex without consequences with money that you earned with your own hard work is still perfectly valid.
August: I'm not sure how far you read into these, but none of the articles dismiss other factors as far as I could tell. Even the most "cocky" one of the three only suggests that legal abortion accounts for "only" 50% of the drop, with good arguments for where those other 50% are. The others are even more conservative. And these are just 3 examples of many. As I said, the only thing I've not found is a cost-benefit analysis about subsidized pills specifically.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.