Jump to content
colfax

Planned Parenthood Nips Back At Romney

Recommended Posts

As a MSNBC watcher, it seems the Left's major argument against the abortion ban is the abortion ban exception of rape, incests, & the female's health. By default, that makes it appears that the Left is not arguing against the abortion ban for all other reasons. Of course,it is hard to take the pragmatic view of choosing abortion, instead the moral high road involving the high ideals of religion, spirit, & the beginning of life. But this leaves all the arguments for choosing abortion for pragmatic reasons on the pregnant female's shoulders. Let us not forget that it takes a male and a female to start a pregnancy. I would think that the Left should involve the male half of the population, and to start them thinking about the consequences of an abortion ban. Why should the male population think that the female should bear all the consequences of a ban on abortion. Should the male causing the pregnancy be responsible for 1/2 or more of the hospiltal cost of the pregnancy. The pregnant female may not be able to work during a most of the time of the pregnancy. Should it come out of his health insurance. And if he doesn't have health insurance, another argument for universal health care. And after the birth of the child, should the responsible male be responsible for cost for the child up till he/she is 18 years old. Probably back when abortion was first legalized, the male causing the birth could argue that he was not the father. But with the progress of science and DNA testing, that is not a good arguement. But it appears the male population is still of the mindset that a ban on abortion will only cause hardship for the female. If the male population becomes aware of the consequences of a ban on abortion on the male, there may start a significaant shift by the male population against the abortion ban. Even faithfully married men should worried about their sons as their son get to the age of dating. If their sons gets a girl pregnant during a moment of passion or teenage hormones this may destroy their hope for completing their education and getting a good job. This will be a large financial burden placed on their son because of the pregnancy. But there will also be a emotional burden. Will the son ever get happily married to someone he loves, because of this pregnancy due to passion or lust. So this burden as a consequence a ban on abortion will affect the male causing the pregnancy, and all the males related to him, such as the father, brother, friends, coworkers, etc.

 

(As an aside, the insurance company may have to raise the rates for males to equal to what they would like to apply to females, if the male will be responsible for the cost of an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy. If there is a ban on abortion, the insurance company can't argue that since the women has a choice of whether she can continue the pregnancy or not, she is responsible for the cost of the pregnancy. This may start shifting the health insurance companies toward the side for abortion choice.)

 

The Right's argument for a ban on abortion involve the high ideals of religion, spirit, & the beginning of life. The Left's counterargument should be "put your money where your mouth is". The Right say that they are saving the life of the unborn. The old Chinese proverb is that if you save a life, you are responsible for the life. If the pregnant female does not want the pregnancy, but a government mandate forces her to complete the pregnancy, does this make the government responsible for the baby. Is the Right only concerned about human life while it is within the female body? Does this concern stops after it exits the female body? Could the female who did not want the pregnancy, give the baby to the government after she is forced to complete the pregnancy. If the Right is going to take the high road of the high ideals of religion & spirit, & the beginning of life, how will they answer this question while remaining on the high road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a MSNBC watcher, it seems the Left's major argument against the abortion ban is the abortion ban exception of rape, incests, & the female's health. By default, that makes it appears that the Left is not arguing against the abortion ban for all other reasons. Of course,it is hard to take the pragmatic view of choosing abortion, instead the moral high road involving the high ideals of religion, spirit, & the beginning of life. But this leaves all the arguments for choosing abortion for pragmatic reasons on the pregnant female's shoulders. Let us not forget that it takes a male and a female to start a pregnancy. I would think that the Left should involve the male half of the population, and to start them thinking about the consequences of an abortion ban. Why should the male population think that the female should bear all the consequences of a ban on abortion. Should the male causing the pregnancy be responsible for 1/2 or more of the hospiltal cost of the pregnancy. The pregnant female may not be able to work during a most of the time of the pregnancy. Should it come out of his health insurance. And if he doesn't have health insurance, another argument for universal health care. And after the birth of the child, should the responsible male be responsible for cost for the child up till he/she is 18 years old. Probably back when abortion was first legalized, the male causing the birth could argue that he was not the father. But with the progress of science and DNA testing, that is not a good arguement. But it appears the male population is still of the mindset that a ban on abortion will only cause hardship for the female. If the male population becomes aware of the consequences of a ban on abortion on the male, there may start a significaant shift by the male population against the abortion ban. Even faithfully married men should worried about their sons as their son get to the age of dating. If their sons gets a girl pregnant during a moment of passion or teenage hormones this may destroy their hope for completing their education and getting a good job. This will be a large financial burden placed on their son because of the pregnancy. But there will also be a emotional burden. Will the son ever get happily married to someone he loves, because of this pregnancy due to passion or lust. So this burden as a consequence a ban on abortion will affect the male causing the pregnancy, and all the males related to him, such as the father, brother, friends, coworkers, etc.

 

(As an aside, the insurance company may have to raise the rates for males to equal to what they would like to apply to females, if the male will be responsible for the cost of an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy. If there is a ban on abortion, the insurance company can't argue that since the women has a choice of whether she can continue the pregnancy or not, she is responsible for the cost of the pregnancy. This may start shifting the health insurance companies toward the side for abortion choice.)

 

The Right's argument for a ban on abortion involve the high ideals of religion, spirit, & the beginning of life. The Left's counterargument should be "put your money where your mouth is". The Right say that they are saving the life of the unborn. The old Chinese proverb is that if you save a life, you are responsible for the life. If the pregnant female does not want the pregnancy, but a government mandate forces her to complete the pregnancy, does this make the government responsible for the baby. Is the Right only concerned about human life while it is within the female body? Does this concern stops after it exits the female body? Could the female who did not want the pregnancy, give the baby to the government after she is forced to complete the pregnancy. If the Right is going to take the high road of the high ideals of religion & spirit, & the beginning of life, how will they answer this question while remaining on the high road.

 

First, I agree with you Sky Hawk 7A. And second, MSNBC, for what it's worth, isn't even liberal in my view of thinking, it's way too politically bent. Where Liberalism is about discussion, Greek perhaps in its origin considering Socrates and Plato or all, sic. Liberalism is in no way a political party or partisan, nor for that matter is conservatism some type of a thought. You can't compare the two like apples to apples, they are indeed both part of the same, one is fabric of discovery, and the latter is pragmatic thought regarding a specific thing. The terms Liberal and Conservative aren't intended to be juxtapose/ that is/ such as, the Liberal might think its important to be conservative on the use of fossil fuel means, don't waste it.

The fact is, we are all Liberal to some varying degree, no one, or no group is "conservative". You could be very much lugubrious in your liberal political nonsense, surely you could. That means you should be a bit more conservative in what you pragmatically propose.

 

I don't think there's really such a thing as a conservative mind in the sense that it dominates any Liberal mind. I think that is all made up by partisans who like very much to build agendas for one thing or another --- which is not on its face a bad thing at all.

 

Cable news of course is lazy partisanship even if I might agree more with MSNBC easily over what Roger Ales developed, you know the Republican Channel, aka FOX NEWS.

 

What I mean to say is sometimes the digest on the liberal side can be almost as bad. As for PP, I support them, and I'm a male not happy with abortion only being discussed as a female decision. Yes, I agree, the male counter part is at least fifty percent to blame --- most times even more so, to a much higher degree. Abortion needs to stop being a political wedge every four years.

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


No holds barred chat

  • Hey kfools.. does this help? 


  • By Vegas

    Liberals are going to hell.


  • grgle



  • Where’s at @slideman?


  • Hola


  • I know this one, this new chat thing. I've seen it called the "shoutbox" among other things in my past. Very hard to hide from the chat box. The question is asked, there's no time to go search what other folks think, this is real time. Only seconds should be between chat box replies. This one is made for me. In the chat box one has to be quick on their feet with stuff at the ready. This chat box is the worst nightmare of anyone trying to deal with ol' teach. 


  • By pmurT

    hey @teacher that sounds like too much work for me LOL I need that useless thing called *time* in order to authenticate facts and truths which get posted by deceitful Dems


  • What does the red number refer to? currently, on my screen it says 2

     


  • Where does it say 2?


  • So. In the chat....if you tag a member the text afterwards should be a private message. 


  • How do? I'm teacher. If I'm online and the powers that be can figure out how to make it immediately apparent to me that whatever I've said here has been replied to I'm gonna show up right quick and kick some teeth in. It's the chat box, all this is new and scary. I know this gig. This starts now. 



  • Hey kfools, did you lose your securtiy cert? On my browser it is saying your site is not secure?


  • Mine too. I'm looking into it.


  • Mine too. 


  • I thought it was my location.. 


  • Just gave to renew the security cert. No big deal I'll do it tonight


  • OK thanks

     



  • Happy Anniversary, America... on your Civil Union.


  • All lives matter.


  • Double post deleted.


  • By teacher

    Scroll the other way for a while and you'll see me saying that these days the chat box ain't gonna work as one has to be quick on one's feet. The question is posed, there ain't no stinkin time for ya'll to refer to your betters for the answer, ya'll don't understand these things, this political debate, ya'll don't have the answer at hand, ya'll haven't thought this through, ya'll ain't ready for the next question I'll ask,  ya'll can't handle the pace that a bloke such as I can bring it in the chat box, ya'll can't handle this format.

     

    This one is made for me. 


  • By teacher

    Being offended does not make one correct. 


  • By teacher

    Some few days before the next election Mr. Fools is gonna pin my horse thread. it's gonna be horrible, I shall endevour every day to bring some some fresh. 

     

    I still own this cat box.


  • By teacher

    "I'm coming to you for ask a quick favor."


  • By teacher

    "Anyone that places a color in front of their name is racist." That one is not mine, got it from another member. 


  • Where’s all the hot bitches? 


  • By teacher

    Kidding me? 


  • By nuckin futz

    How do I get rid of this chatroom box?


  • By nuckin futz

    How do I get rid of this chatroom box?


  • By nuckin futz

    Get me out of Chatbox!


  • By jefftec

    The chatbox stays expanded and is a nuisance blocking screen images. What setting is there to control/collapse chatbox?


  • By kfools

    Just click the no holds barred to collapse it.


  • diddle dee dee


You don't have permission to chat in this chatroom
×
×
  • Create New...