The 112th Congress - A Congress divided shall not cry!

[Kepler]

Re: The 112th Congress - A Congress divided shall not cry!

Jim Webb is calling it quits after one term.

The Comments on that article really speak to the intellectual sophistication of the Republican base.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 112th Congress - A Congress divided shall not cry!

Because this is actually a deficit reduction measure. It only looks like chum to arouse social conservatives.

So we should promote abortion to reduce the deficit, even if I believed this would reduce the deficit, which I don't (and even Scooby is conceding it's a slight deficit reduction, and he never concedes anything)?

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 112th Congress - A Congress divided shall not cry!

So we should promote abortion to reduce the deficit, even if I believed this would reduce the deficit, which I don't (and even Scooby is conceding it's a slight deficit reduction, and he never concedes anything)?

Please. My point, and you very well know what it was and that it is correct, is this has nothing to do with spending and everything to do with grandstanding in preparation for the 2012 election. If reducing abortions doubled the deficit they would still support it because they know thar be votes.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 112th Congress - A Congress divided shall not cry!

So we should promote abortion to reduce the deficit, even if I believed this would reduce the deficit, which I don't (and even Scooby is conceding it's a slight deficit reduction, and he never concedes anything)?

Bob, we already don't pay for them. The Hyde Amendment has been law for a while. The discussion centers around the GOP wanting to change the definition of rape. Since there is an exception for abortions of rape victims they wanted to redefine the law that you could only have the abortion if it was "forcible" rape. As if there is any other kind. Now if they truly were putting their money where there mouth was they would not allow abortions for any scenario. Health of the mother, rape, incest, whatever. That's a human life and no matter how it got there it shouldn't be punished just because the dad is a sick demented human being who can't have sex unless he gets it by force (or under the new definition not by force but by coercion, or was the lady drunk, or what have you).

 

[unofan]

Re: The 112th Congress - A Congress divided shall not cry!

Thought you wanted less federal spending. Guess not.

Abortions cost less than prenatal care.

Just sayin'.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 112th Congress - A Congress divided shall not cry!

Abortions cost less than prenatal care.

Just sayin'.

That's ok. They don't want to pay for that either.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 112th Congress - A Congress divided shall not cry!

Please. My point, and you very well know what it was and that it is correct, is this has nothing to do with spending and everything to do with grandstanding in preparation for the 2012 election. If reducing abortions doubled the deficit they would still support it because they know thar be votes.

As is the case with basically everything the Dems and Reps do. Your point is?

 

[leswp1]

Re: The 112th Congress - A Congress divided shall not cry!

As is the case with basically everything the Dems and Reps do. Your point is?

Nothing changes?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 112th Congress - A Congress divided shall not cry!

Abortions cost less than prenatal care.

Just sayin'.

Suddenly everybody loves for the government to pay for something. Just the other day people moaned that if my wife got any help with chiropractic visits, that she was freeloading from the government. So, let's pay for abortions, but not basic health care.
I can make the same argument that paying for chiropractic visits now will spare much more expensive stuff down the line. Those arguments, as well all know if we're being straight up, can be made lots of different ways and you can make the numbers go lots of different ways.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 112th Congress - A Congress divided shall not cry!

Nothing changes?

Except what should be left alone.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 112th Congress - A Congress divided shall not cry!

Now if they truly were putting their money where there mouth was they would not allow abortions for any scenario. Health of the mother, rape, incest, whatever. That's a human life and no matter how it got there it shouldn't be punished

Never understood how it can be a human life but there can be any exception. Do babies conceived by rapes not have souls?

It's another one of those cases where the GOP has to step away from the reductio ad absurdum of Dominion Theology because only a tiny splinter of the population is that crazy, but at the same time they can't admit this because it would undermine their whole cynical project of manipulating religion to further their personal political ambitions. Nice planet.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 112th Congress - A Congress divided shall not cry!

Never understood how it can be a human life but there can be any exception. Do babies conceived by rapes not have souls?

It's another one of those cases where the GOP has to step away from the reductio ad absurdum of Dominion Theology because only a tiny splinter of the population is that crazy, but at the same time they can't admit this because it would undermine their whole cynical project of manipulating religion to further their personal political ambitions. Nice planet.

Kepler supports banning abortion in all cases, as they all have souls. Didn't see that one coming.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 112th Congress - A Congress divided shall not cry!

In addition to banning all abortions I want to abolish this program. Way too expensive. And with more births comes more cost and who wants to pay for someone else's offspring.

Next we need to work on that whole education for all thing. Totally inefficient.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 112th Congress - A Congress divided shall not cry!

Kepler supports banning abortion in all cases, as they all have souls. Didn't see that one coming.

Poor evasion. If it is a true human life how does the way it was conceived matter?

These folks at least get it.

"An unborn child is an innocent human, regardless of the circumstances of his conception. Though tragic, the crimes of rape or incest are only exacerbated, and the woman's torments are only intensified, by the additional sin of abortion. Since... the unborn is human, regardless of the "caliber" of his pre-born life, no alleged deficiency in his "quality" of life can justify the taking of that life.

The same applies to the so-called "either/or" dilemma: The mother's life is supposedly in danger, and there is a chance she might die; to ensure her safety, it is said, it is necessary to kill the child. Yet one is never justified in doing evil that good may come of it (Rom. 3:8). What is at issue here is homicidal intent.

They're wrong, but they're consistent and their position is logically defensible (the Jesuits always could run intellectual circles around the Evangelicals). The ones who argue they are "pro-life" but favor exceptions completely contradict their own argument and really believe nothing at all.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 112th Congress - A Congress divided shall not cry!

In addition to banning all abortions I want to abolish this program. Way too expensive. And with more births comes more cost and who wants to pay for someone else's offspring.

Next we need to work on that whole education for all thing. Totally inefficient.

Educating women leads to their demand for control over their bodies. And, you know, two thousand year old book doesn't like that, etc...

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 112th Congress - A Congress divided shall not cry!

In addition to banning all abortions I want to abolish this program. Way too expensive. And with more births comes more cost and who wants to pay for someone else's offspring.

Next we need to work on that whole education for all thing. Totally inefficient.

The education system is incredibly inefficient. Glad you grasp that one.

 

[unofan]

Re: The 112th Congress - A Congress divided shall not cry!

So, let's pay for abortions, but not basic health care.

No offense, but those are one and the same at this point in time.

I can make the same argument that paying for chiropractic visits now will spare much more expensive stuff down the line. Those arguments, as well all know if we're being straight up, can be made lots of different ways and you can make the numbers go lots of different ways.

To a degree, yes, though not as much as you're stretching it here. Which is why the pro-life crowd needs to stick with their moral message and not a financial one. You at least have a leg to stand on morally (abortion = murder), even if others disagree. Claiming this is a fiscal issue won't just lose the battle, but lose it badly.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 112th Congress - A Congress divided shall not cry!

Poor evasion. If it is a true human life how does the way it was conceived matter?

These folks at least get it.

They're wrong, but they're consistent and their position is logically defensible (the Jesuits always could run intellectual circles around the Evangelicals). The ones who argue they are "pro-life" but favor exceptions completely contradict their own argument and really believe nothing at all.

So now you're saying they don't have souls, so abortion is ok whenever? Or do they just magically have a soul show up in the 24th week or whenever, so only after that is it wrong to dismember them? But, in that 23rd week, they're just a glob of tissue, or so the story goes.

It is inconsistent to say that some abortions are ok, but others aren't. But, that's where most people land, and find various ways to avoid addressing this glaring inconsistency.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 112th Congress - A Congress divided shall not cry!

The education system is incredibly inefficient. Glad you grasp that one.

We could crank up the efficiency by abolishing CHIPS and Obamacare and only offering school to kids that have health insurance. As it is you can't go to school unless your vaccinated and this whole "vaccinations for free" nonsense has got to stop.

 

[leswp1]

Re: The 112th Congress - A Congress divided shall not cry!

Suddenly everybody loves for the government to pay for something. Just the other day people moaned that if my wife got any help with chiropractic visits, that she was freeloading from the government. So, let's pay for abortions, but not basic health care.
I can make the same argument that paying for chiropractic visits now will spare much more expensive stuff down the line. Those arguments, as well all know if we're being straight up, can be made lots of different ways and you can make the numbers go lots of different ways.

I think the point being made is they are considering the abortion part of health care that is accessible thru fed funding. This really isn't about $ as much as many people have difficulty with abortion period. They can't legislate absolute abolition of the right to access this option but they are trying to limit it to the point it is not really available for those not paying for their own health care. Unfortunately other insurance plans frequently use the fed guidelines as a basis for their own guidelines.

As a health care provider this is a very scary thing. While I don't like to see anyone need to consider an abortion and I would prefer they did not chose it, there are instances when it would be d amn scary if one was not available. I was not practicing when people went to back alleys but I was a teen when they needed to cross state lines. People did some scary, dangerous stuff to terminate pregnancy. I have had people who tell me if they aren't covered they will do it themselves. (very creepy to have this conversation!)

Beyond the medical/psych complcations of the proposal--My understanding of the definition of rape is all sexual activity that is unwilling, in any orifice. All rape is forced whether in violence, intimidation or coercion of a minor/mentally incompetent person. This law would redefine what was considered force. So what will that do to the definition of rape? The proposal is changing the interpretation of what rape is just when we have got to the point where people are starting to grasp what rape is without having someone say it wasn't really rape. I have a viceral response to this that just screams NO!