Bill to de-fund Planned Parenthood re-introduced in Congress

My original response that I had typed was 85% fury, so I'm going to do my best to be civil about this.

The reason industrialized nations succeed, is because of their stable/replacement stage populations. Abortion serves as an essential service to prevent our numbers from growing. Anytime a child is unwanted, they should not be kept, because the likelihood they will be provided the essential care and resources they need to be a well-adjusted, productive adult are slim at best. I, on a personal level, do not approve of abortion as a form of birth control, and would much rather advocate adoption, but the fact remains that the reason high-income societies succeed, is because fertility and birth rates are low. 2-child families and less are required to keep a population stable.

Outlawing abortion and therefore allowing millions more children into our population will convert our economic state to that of India's in no time. Their population, like China's, is so overinflated, that only half of people attend school after age 10 - child workers are necessary just to support families in slums. India is 1,269,219 square miles, which is 1/3rd the size of the U.S., but with 3 times the population - a population density of 940 people per square mile. Only 31% of the population has proper sanitation and access to essential services. Thirty-one percent. Less than 1/3rd. This is what an idealistic view on life gets you - too many people, too much poverty, atrocious literacy and school attendance rates.

It's adorable and novel how you want every single 'human life' to have an equal chance at survival, but the fact remains that that is utterly and horrifically socially irresponsible. Our economy is already in dire straits. We're in a hole of debt. And your 'chivalrous', 'old-fashioned' ideals would have our funds stretched to a point that poverty and starvation would increase drastically.

These are objective facts, because I refuse to negotiate 'morals' and 'beliefs' with you, because that is all you operate on. So here, have some cold logic.

With all those babies, we'd be reduced to slums in a matter of years. We can barely support the population we have as it is, some would argue we can't even manage that at our current point in time.

Industrialized nations such as China? http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2013/01/china-in-revolution-and-war


http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/understanding-chinas-one-child-policy-7330

Another link, suggesting strength in numbers. The article does go onto to make your claim that higher numbers, in a combination of a scarcity of jobs, food, etc has led to impoverishment.

But the solution lies not within micromanaging human lives as cattle. That will bring about an artificial improvement, perhaps. But more significantly would be micromanaging actual resources.

In addition the Gender Imbalance is a serious issue, because whether we acknowledge it or not, it is a fact: That we need women and men in our society. Neither extreme feminism nor chauvnist behavior will survive the 21st century economy.




Speaking of our debt, and we can go there: Hundreds of millions of dollars in 'Unfunded Liabilities'(This isn't including Social Security, Medicaid, etc.)
Surely, this too, isn't a result of population overgrowth is it?

It's actually due in large part to a difficult economic transition: Millions of baby boomers occupy senior jobs, and have done so for quite some time. Meanwhile the youth struggle to get jobs, their numbers are much smaller than that of their baby boomer peers.

http://www.ere.net/2011/08/25/americas-tough-jobs-are-getting-even-tougher-to-fill/

http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/10/is-the-indian-economy-bottoming-out-or-heading-south/

Looking at some of the problems: Inflation, fiscal deficit and slowing growth looks familiar.

We, here in America are suffering from those same problems. So, do we abort more? I mean clearly, we still have far too many lives.

No, these problems deal with overspending in a vast variety of areas, most of them politically-oriented. Hundreds of millions that you nor I see in our pocket book. India has recently taken to investing more in its infrastructure, they are correct to be optimistic about that.





Here are some more objective facts in cold logic: Our population is actually declining rapidly: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/01/world_population_may_actually_start_declining_not_exploding.html

In economic terms, deflation is the countermeasure to inflation and normally within a crisis, the market "corrects itself." Just the same as the market, mother nature(IE: Death) also levels the playing field. We're born, we grow and then we die.

In our arrogance, we neglect that the Earth is a living bio organism. No different from you and I. The Baby Boomer generation is getting older, balance will reign on the earth again...Or maybe not, because of our own micromanagement.

I disagree with Joseph Stalin, the decline of the Soviet Union disagreed with Joseph Stalin. And the numbers also disagree. Micromanaging human lives, in this manner has resulted in the reverse of our 'best efforts'.



http://business.time.com/2012/12/04/birth-rate-plunges-during-recession/

We can no longer count on immigrant babies to help push this up. No, it's time to start promoting population growth. Population growth will lead to economic demand, demand will result in production.

Is it a coincidence that during the Baby Boomer Era, America enjoyed massive prosperity? To me, it's not a coincidence, just as it wasn't a coincidence that the Berlin Wall fell.

We have a choice, either follow in the footsteps of Joseph Stalin or revive our formerly domestic growing country.

Our growing country, is still growing. You're getting overly excited and piddling yourself over figures about our global welfare, that is not yet relevant. The very fact you mention our global state at all, is not relevant because this thread is about the merits and grievances regarding the legalization or penalization of abortion in the United States of America.

Legal loopholes ensure that if someone is accused it's hard for them to fight back, and getting legal residence status and other benefits is too appealing for some unfortunately.

As for it not being scraped, many Dems wouldn't have passed it without those measures, and as you did state earlier, unfortunately some Republicans say this as a chance to further act as an opposition to Dems and to...generally act like dicks to certain groups.

Let's not vilify men or take away their legal rights, or pretend domestic violence is a gender issue.

Let me stop you right here. According to the text of the bill. It would only remove Federal funding, NOT make abortions illegal.



While it is true, those who seek something will do so regardless of it's legality. Again I must point out the bill does not make abortions illegal, it simply prevents the Federal Government from stealing money from people to pay for someones abortion. The main difference between marijuana and abortion funding is, in order to buy weed you have to use your own money. For an abortion, you can make the Federal Government take that money by force from someone else. Just so you'll understand what I'm saying in regard to the use of force, perhaps you should watch this video.



If this bill was passed, you wouldn't be denied access to a clean, safe and standardized facility. You simply would be able to use other people's money to pay for it.

I get the feeling you didn't read the amendment.


@lolikittie

What steps would you take to deal with the issue of domestic violence?

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005067.html

While looking at history, we see that in fact during the war years, the birth rate decreased drastically. The "Boom" as it were, recovered 5% of those births that were lost, but still a slight decrease from the higher numbers in the early 19th century. The decline has continued ever since, and the scary part is these last 30 or so years have been in relative peace time!

I'd also like to refer you to this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/12/census-hispanics-and-black-unseat-whites-as-majority-in-united-states-population_n_2286105.html

There's nothing to celebrate about this, native Americans cultivated the homeland. The European-English State has now dissolved and to quote the article itself.

"The challenge is educating these immigrants" Yes, quite a challenge when these immigrants can't even stay in class!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/education/25ellis.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I remember discussing with my homeroom teacher about this matter, and she told me of the difficulties of having to teach classes, months at a time with these immigrants leaving. As a result, they didn't learn anything at all.

A majority of this probably has to do with Deportation, and to be sure there've been quite a few successes economically, politically and socially by minorities.

But, in spite of Liberal Theory the reality is that the exception is not the norm

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703894304575047321179743554.html

There was a similar discussion in the controversial thread surrounding the supposed stereotypes of African-Americans. Thomas Sowell pointed out that African-Americans, as well as peoples of all races faced different challenges, logically in different lands.

Doesn't mean they can't, but it does mean I'm not holding my breath for the minorities among us to take hold of the senior positions in this country and do them as well and as effectively as those who were born here, cultivated in the language and the lifestyle and appreciate it.

In addition to that, as I pointed out in our previous link, said immigrant births are also declining along with our native ones. America faces a future, a decade or more from now of a lack of leadership, a lack of identity. Hell, we face this now in the form of the heated political debates.

Our "Diversity" has led to the destruction of the union, true universalism can only be achieved through individual acceptance. Instead, Liberal Theorists have tried to achieve universalism by putting people in a borg hive.

One cannot preach understanding, yet forcing others to join together when they have different tastes, cultural understandings, etc.





The link I posted above:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005067.html Shows that our live birth rate is actually declining, if our live birth rate is declining then it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that our total population growth is declining.

In addition, that Huffington article I posted and this article will show you a stark contrast to your opinions: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57547709/aging-baby-boomer-drivers-a-growing-concern/

The population is aging, perhaps not as much of an epidemic as in Japan and other countries, but nearing those levels well enough. As more baby boomers enter retirement, or worse yet force themselves to work due to lack of retirement benefiits(and their own abilities decline), the work stoppage will increase.

As I mentioned before, in my last post to you that this is a large part of why the young adults continue to face unemployment challenges. We have to make a transition, sooner rather than later.






You mean, like the one we're going through? As you mention earlier, our TFR is 2.06, that's not too far off from the U.K and technically we have about half a birth more than Japan. Is that really the replacement rate?

An article I posted in the previous post, identified that there are a few families who exceed the perceived two child limit. Those families in a sense, are carrying the weight of those who do two or less children. With a bit of adjustment, you see we really aren't performing as well off as you think.

From a socio-economic perspective, I want us to match India's current rate of production. Around 2.5-2.7. If we did that, when the baby boomers retire/die off, we'll be able to replace the production.

You cannot replace more with less, you generally try to match or exceed it. I want our birth rate to be always at the 18-21 per 1000 ratio.

To put our situation in perspective, we have only 1/4th of our population under age 15, 1/4th!

http://www.globalhealthfacts.org/data/topic/map.aspx?ind=98 Then there's this.

Being realistic, are we worse off than third/second world countries? No, but are we struggling among developed countries? Yep, we're right smack dab in the middle. And that's not good enough.

http://www.globalhealthfacts.org/data/topic/map.aspx?ind=81

I want to lower this number down, it's currently at 37 years, with a new boom I could have it at 33-35 years. I would prolong our country's prosperity.








Things won't change overnight, but it wasn't all that long ago when the world was singing India's praises. The problems there are more correctable then here at home, India doesn't have to deal with the same type of political correctness, corruption, etc.

If they had stayed at around 2.6, they wouldn't face the problems they face now. So I think they're at a good place now. 2.5 is a good number to make up for the margin of error.(IE: We probably aren't exactly at 2.0 Maybe a little higher, likely a little lower.)

Because of said Margin points, traditionally it's accepted that the larger the percentage is, the less of an impact the margin has on the results.







I find that's incorrect, let's look at this graph.
http://mappinghistory.uoregon.edu/english/US/US39-01.html It ends at 2000, so you'd think it'd be irrelevant in terms of data, right?

Wrong: http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q12012/2012-life-expectancy-us-second-to-last479/ Not only has our Life Expectancy not increased since its peak in 2000, it's actually decreased(slightly).

But basically, our western medicine has basically doubled our life expectancy. Do we really want a base of death at the age of 40? I contend to you that there aren't too many mouths to feed. Quite the contrary, I contend to you that there's wasted product and production inefficency.











As noted above, they're doing a pretty awful job.(No improvements since the start of the 21st century).







This isn't entirely(or mostly) to boost population numbers, though I want to do that. This is to recreate the economic boom of the 60's. The higher the demand for jobs, the more people will work to actually meet that demand. That was the Revolution that transformed America.

In addition to the lowering birth rate, we've also shipped out a mass of our manufacturing jobs.

http://www.digitalmanufacturingreport.com/dmr/2013-01-16/huge_loss_of_u.s._manufacturing_jobs_triggered_by_china_trade_decision.html

The combination of lessening demand and production has devastated the U.S. Economy. And I've explained my Abortion stance before, the tldr version is that women are endangered through the abortion decision, we're all zygotes and fetuses. The only difference being we've developed our bodily functions.

The argument that some have made is that the fetus is a parasite, but if the fetus is a parasite then that argument is true for all of us. It's not a parasite, it is a merger between the life of the fetus and the carrier.

For proof, kangaroo's have a pouch. Birds have nests. When a predator tries to attack the eggs or the new born babies, they get their asses kicked. They clearly don't see their newborns as parasitical.

I think we're seeing the limitation and degradation of the Human mind, where our feelings of love and apathy are going to such lows that we can look at fellow human life as parasitical.








I've been going about this debate with you all wrong. So the only time we need to promote population growth is in a crisis? I disagree, if you feel as though we need to stay ahead of the population and cull it, I basically feel the opposite:




As I've proved earlier, our production has dropped significantly, we've shifted off our wealth to other nations, in fact we feel like nation building around the world! As such, I don't think we're lacking in land space. And there'll always be a demand for jobs, but the difference is in the volume of demand.

By making it beneficial for families to have babies, I'm artificially jacking up the demand. The Government, laughably enough, believes it can jack up demand with lesser prices. It doesn't matter if the prices are low, if people can't buy anything.

Another thing, these abortions are expensive, hence the Planned Parenthood funding. I don't even think health insurance companies want to foot the bill. So along with the health and ethical concerns, there's concern from an economic standpoint.




By 2018, the revolution of diversity would have ended majority rule in the American Continent and we'll be left with a bunch of indians, but no chiefs. That future is a lot sooner than you think. I want to avert that future altogether. Japan has tried a flux of immigration(as has Europe) with failed results.

If a guest visits your house, would he care as much for that house as you would? Of course not. And as I pointed out above, with a margin for error, I don't think we're neatly at 2.0(Nor do I think that really covers the replacement value). 2.5 is a much better number).





I discussed the need for us to bring more lives into the world, not less. And how doing so would artifically jack up demand, which would then create jobs. Also, it needn't be mentioned but Stalin had a bunch of people murdered, he conditionally micromanaged the economy and millions of Russians suffered for it.

In our support for an open-ended abortion policy, and now the idea that we can throw women into the hells of war, it supports the truism, we needn't fear foreign agents.

I fear this citizenry, you can convince them of anything but their own ideas. True incompetence.

Just to make sure, would your ban on abortion include contraception?

Ss for your debate between you and kittie, i don't think having lots of babies will suddenly improve the economy,nor do i believe in population control. Also, female soldiers have been participating in combat for decades. The new law only allows them to get job promotions and such for that service.

They mostly were reserves, now they'll be asked nay, demanded to join the front lines. This means carrying equipment that weighs as much as You and I(if not more) on a consistent basis. This means shooting to kill, turning off one's natural instincts, etc. Things that, for a woman are virtually impossible.

And even if it were possible, we know how difficult it is for men veterans to translate into a post-war society, now we want women attempting the same? What about the children and their families? We'll just dump them off to whatever civilian is not yet drafted?

This is an awful idea, it's a catastrophically epic fail idea. In TLDR, Panetta has just committed treason against the United States. He has weakened our forces and he has jepordized our social civil structure.(In other words, only women can actually have children. Loli said there needed to be a crisis to promote family building. I think killing off a bunch of women is such a said crisis.)

The only way it could be worse, would be a renegade U.S. official with nuclear intelligence either sending it to Radical Islam, or simply using the bomb himself.

Soon, we'll send children into war zones. Germany only did so when WW2 was hopelessly lost and Soviet damn near demolished the entire country(And even then, they volunteered). More aptly, I'd say we're very close to becoming Mali/corrupt African nations with warlords such as Kony.

You didn't answer my first question about whether your proposed abortion ban would include contraception.



If a woman has joined the army then i'm pretty sure she is okay with serving in the front lines. And the rest of this paragraph sounds extremely sexist to me. Women can train themselves to carry heavy objects,shoot to kill, and turn off there natural instincts same as a man.



We could just help any soldier coming back home that needs it regardless of the soldier's gender. And why would the procedures for how we deal with children of soldiers be any different for a woman?



Again, women are equally capable of serving in combat. And women can't have children when males, so i don't see how this is jeopardizing social structure. Also, you are acting like there will be a sudden explosion of women entering the army now that they aren't explicitly restricted from combat roles. I highly doubt that is going to happen



...that may be one of your most ridiculous exaggerations yet. You are comparing women participating in combat to a nuclear attack.



...are you seriously comparing the capabilities of women to children?Women are not the weak, helpless things you are making them out to be. For fucks sake, a female cia agent managed to track down Bin laden. And allowing them to serve in the same way a man can is not corruption.

I'm not even going to bother going through quoting the post. I find it takes a while and makes my response longer. Maybe there are women(very few) who could make that transition. But would we really want women who can turn off their emotions and kill people? Seriously?

The difference between sending females and males is this: You can send and lose a portion of the male population(which is generally slightly larger than females) and for the most part, not lose a beat.

Now imagine, losing the part of our species that actually can procreate. Do you know how other animals become instinct? I can almost guarantee that the female species of those animals are lesser than the males!

Liberals are suggesting social retardation, not even in an era of sexism(19th century) were females sent into battle. You'd think the oppressive males would have females fight their battles for them. But no, the opposite.

I wasn't comparing sending women to the battle field to a nuclear attack. I said it was the only thing that could possibly be worse. No other social civilization(with the exception of second and third world countries) would/is attempting what we're going to do now.

Yes I am comparing the 'capabilities' of women to children. Are they really all that different? Have you looked at the average female's figure. You're on a freaking porn site! You should know as well as anybody that a female is not physically capable of combat against wild, savage animals whose first instinct is to kill their enemy.

Now, answering the abortion question:

It's not a full-ban, I support a partial abortion ban. That is, I support only abortion in medical cases(Rape, incest, danger to the health of the mother.) As far as Contraceptives, I've nothing against the condom but I'm against the Pill and other such measures.

Why? How can I support Medical Abortion, and allow the woman to inject some drug into her system which screws up with her natural hormones causing unknown effects? I'm not a hypocrite. The well-being of the mother and of the child is my priority.

We agree on one thing, we don't believe in population control. Eugenics was generally frowned upon after the second war. I frown upon them. All lives start equally, rather than punish the newly born for their parents economic situation, it'd be better suited for us to create such an economic situation to allow all to prosper.

Let's take some pride in our communities, instead of taking the easy way out.

"benevolent sexism" the post.

A large portion of citizens aren't being sent overseas to die. And of that small portion, females are a minority. If you personally don't believe women should have to fight wars, that's fine, but they should have the right to do so. I think if they meet certain criteria set up by the govt. they should be able to and are willing to do so, they should be able to.

As for birth control, the effects to taking the drug is already known. It's not exactly new. Yes there are some negatives, but overall it give the users a bit more control of their bodies, something you're trying to deny them.

I'm pro abortion. Especially in cases of rape/incest/birth complications/under age(Teens). Plus I believe families that can't support having children shouldn't have children. Plain and simple.

Edit:
Defunding Planned Parenthood is just stupid.

Call it "Benevolent Sexism" if you'd like, but it works the same way: As much as single mothers struggle(and they struggle mightily), Single Fathers have it just as bad if not worse!

http://www.lone-parents.org.uk/dads.htm

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/12/dad_struggles_then_adapts_to_b.html

To their credit, men aren't ones to give up and just as their female counterparts they do their best, but the universal struggle lays home the point:

Parental Structure is a necessity, one endowed by nature itself. In the animal kingdom, the tighter the pack, the stronger the community.

But yet, according to Liberal Theory, the two different people are the same. Liberal Theory stretches out the truth. They are only the same when they become one, and only when they supplant each other's strengths and cover their weaknesses.

To proclaim that a woman could fight a war is insane, men were naturally built to be stronger, more fit, better dexterity. Not only can't they(Oh, I'm sure there are exceptions), but it's socially devastating for them to do so. Children need to be groomed, societies need to be stabilized. These are roles that only women can excel at.

http://www.disabled-world.com/artman/publish/height-chart.shtml

In the U.S. alone, men are literally half a foot taller than women

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/bodymeas.htm

And there's at least a 30 pound difference.

I mean, why is this even a debate? If you want to make the absurd suggestion that they can, then I'll say there's a distinct and clear difference between
capability and practical application.

Sure, they could dress up in a uniform, carry a gun and portray the part of a soldier. The reality is, the president has just authorized an untold number of deaths, rapes, etc.

Nothing can be more sexist than the policy told to us, it is humane of me to spare women such a gruesome death.

I'm exceedingly late to this party. But I thought I'd say something here.

Don't worry about republicans ruining this country. They'll destroy themselves before they do that. The Republicans are slowly dying as a party. Eventually, at some point in I feel the near future, the Republican party as we know it will dissolve, and be replaced with a new republican party, changing its core ideals, and kicking out people who don't agree with those core ideals, so they can better appeal to the general public, who are becoming more socially liberal in the very least as time progresses.

Or maybe I'm just too much of an optimist.

If I read what you just wrote, you basically called for the Republican Party to become the Democratic Party 2.0. Alinsky's teachings, much?

Never mind that Democrats have had control of Congress since 2006. Never mind that Democrats have been behind every economic disaster in this country's history:

Wilson: The Federal Reserve(and rising Tariff's)
FDR: The New Deal
Johnson: The Great Society/War on Poverty
Obama: The Failed Stimulus/Obamacare(We don't know the economic effects yet but
we will soon enough.)

The Democratic Congress can't even come to an agreement on a budget! But of course, as long as we have aggregate capital we'll be able to indefinitely kick the can down the road!

I consider myself an Independent, Republicans have their hand in our government's 60 years of incompetence(Welfare for war contractors and all to ready to go to war).

But nothing could be more arrogant then the proposal that a social party whose failed leadership has been self-evident, upholds itself as thou could do no wrong.

Liberalism's greatest success, its far cousin called the Soviet Union eventually fell by the way side of history. Leftist countries such as Cuba, Venezuela and virtually all of South America hasn't experienced prosperity, in well, ever...

So, where does Liberalism and its supporters get off touting their horn for success unseen?

Bill Clinton, seen as one of the more recent successful presidents repealed Glass-Stegall(for his own political convenience no less!) and opened up Free Trade.

I've detailed the past 50 or so years of Liberalism, and I haven't been able to detail any such success.

Since the end of the days of Imperalism, Japan has been a Liberal country. Faced mostly with inflation that makes the Yen more expensive than the freaking dollar.

So tell me, where can I find Liberal success?

I'm not a law major or anything, but here's my two cents:

Planned Parenthood does more than just abortions. There is nothing wrong with educating people about safe sex and giving out contraceptives.
However federal funding for abortions (outside rape, incest, medical reasons, etc) irks me because you should not have sex if you aren't willing to take the potential consequences of it. Weighing your options is something everyone should do, isn't this taught in schools? Not to mention there's the morning after pills and such...
I'm not saying we should remove fedreral funding for abortions. That obviously would cause much more trouble than it's worth. I'm just saying the government should help you if you were dealt a bad hand in life, not because you were an idiot and fucked up.