The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-21-2013, 09:41 AM   #476
baja
Happy camper
 
baja's Avatar
 
Sweet

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 59,999

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ware
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
Thank you for noticing?

How about you respond to Tony then? Or the entire liberal movement. We've been waiting for an answer for decades.

Still waiting.
I did. Long term but reversible sterilization & modern day contraception.

If you conceive murder is not the solution
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 09:43 AM   #477
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Broncenstein View Post
Clearly the answer is to shift responsibility from the individual to the collective at the expense of productive citizens. It has worked so well for the children of the geat society.

Obviously I am not a pro choice supporter, but I agree there are times when a first or early second trimester abortion is understandable and/or medically indicated. Someone gets pregnant from rape / incest... comletely understandable. Someone gets diagnosed with rectal adenocarcinoma and needs neoadjuvant chemo/ radiation prior to a low anterior resection and they are less than 20 wks pregnant... medically indicated (and I've been there having that discussion).

What is not acceptable to me is abortion as a retroactive birth control method, perceived financial hardship avoidence method, or as a means to somehow prevent future poverty and crime. I realize this is incompatible with liberal thought, but sexual intercourse has consequences. You take risk of creating another life when you have vaginal intercourse to completion. The mechanism is well understood and is not rocket science. There are any number of methods to lessen the risk of pregnancy, but none are completley effective. Bottom line.. You take on the responsibility for your actions. If you happen to get pregnant, try something novel like trying to raise your child with the involvement of the father. Or maybe give the child up to any number of couples willing to adopt and care for your child.
And again, "it's the parents' fault".

WE ****ING AGREE WITH YOU.

What are your policies doing to ACTUALLY help children born to a family that cannot support them? Telling a child that their parents made a mistake does nothing to put food on the table.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 09:44 AM   #478
Dr. Broncenstein
Ring of Famer
 
Dr. Broncenstein's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sterile Fields
Posts: 13,630

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Trey Gowdy
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
And, it is still subscribing to the "blame the parents" philosophy which provides absolutely no relief to the poor, innocent child they claimed to care so much about just a few minutes before, when it was still in the womb.
So instead let's snuff out a future person because there is no hope for them. Euthanasia for predicted socioeconomic suffering.
Dr. Broncenstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 09:45 AM   #479
baja
Happy camper
 
baja's Avatar
 
Sweet

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 59,999

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ware
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Broncenstein View Post
Clearly the answer is to shift responsibility from the individual to the collective at the expense of productive citizens. It has worked so well for the children of the geat society.

Obviously I am not a pro choice supporter, but I agree there are times when a first or early second trimester abortion is understandable and/or medically indicated. Someone gets pregnant from rape / incest... comletely understandable. Someone gets diagnosed with rectal adenocarcinoma and needs neoadjuvant chemo/ radiation prior to a low anterior resection and they are less than 20 wks pregnant... medically indicated (and I've been there having that discussion).

What is not acceptable to me is abortion as a retroactive birth control method, perceived financial hardship avoidence method, or as a means to somehow prevent future poverty and crime. I realize this is incompatible with liberal thought, but sexual intercourse has consequences. You take risk of creating another life when you have vaginal intercourse to completion. The mechanism is well understood and is not rocket science. There are any number of methods to lessen the risk of pregnancy, but none are completley effective. Bottom line.. You take on the responsibility for your actions. If you happen to get pregnant, try something novel like trying to raise your child with the involvement of the father. Or maybe give the child up to any number of couples willing to adopt and care for your child.
Excellant post Doc. Rep.
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 09:48 AM   #480
Dr. Broncenstein
Ring of Famer
 
Dr. Broncenstein's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sterile Fields
Posts: 13,630

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Trey Gowdy
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
And again, "it's the parents' fault".

WE ****ING AGREE WITH YOU.

What are your policies doing to ACTUALLY help children born to a family that cannot support them? Telling a child that their parents made a mistake does nothing to put food on the table.
Clearly the answer is to kill the child before it can ever suffer from the humiliation of being born into American poverty and live like royalty in comparison to the rest of the world.
Dr. Broncenstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 09:48 AM   #481
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baja View Post
I did. Long term but reversible sterilization & modern day contraception.

If you conceive murder is not the solution
Soooo sterilizing Couple A AFTER they have a child they have proven to not be able to care for is somehow going to both prevent Couple B from having a child they cannot support, AND help Couple A support the child they already conceived?

Interesting, I don't really see how. Can you be more specific?
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 09:51 AM   #482
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,930
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Broncenstein View Post
Clearly the answer is to kill the child before it can ever suffer from the humiliation of being born into American poverty and live like royalty in comparison to the rest of the world.
That's a pretty low bar.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 09:57 AM   #483
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Broncenstein View Post
Clearly the answer is to kill the child before it can ever suffer from the humiliation of being born into American poverty and live like royalty in comparison to the rest of the world.
No. The answer is to outlaw all abortion except in the cases you mentioned But before you can do that, you have to actually look into WHY women are having abortions.

But no, people like you think someone can just cancel their Directv subscription and shift a few appointments around at work and boom, they're all of the sudden able to care for a child.

And yet still there is no repudiation from the right on such woefully ignorant ideas such as abstinence-only education, and balk at the idea of mandatory sex education.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 10:05 AM   #484
baja
Happy camper
 
baja's Avatar
 
Sweet

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 59,999

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ware
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
No. The answer is to outlaw all abortion except in the cases you mentioned But before you can do that, you have to actually look into WHY women are having abortions.

But no, people like you think someone can just cancel their Directv subscription and shift a few appointments around at work and boom, they're all of the sudden able to care for a child.

And yet still there is no repudiation from the right on such woefully ignorant ideas such as abstinence-only education, and balk at the idea of mandatory sex education.
Yes non life is much better, right?
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 10:06 AM   #485
Dr. Broncenstein
Ring of Famer
 
Dr. Broncenstein's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sterile Fields
Posts: 13,630

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Trey Gowdy
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
No. The answer is to outlaw all abortion except in the cases you mentioned, and then actually look into WHY women are having abortions.

But no, people like you think someone can just cancel their Directv subscription and shift a few appointments around at work and boom, they're all of the sudden able to care for a child.

And yet still there is no repudiation from the right on such woefully ignorant ideas such as abstinence-only education, and balk at the idea of mandatory sex education.
Never said abortion should be outlawed. Never balked at sex education. Never said being a responsible parent is easy or convenient.
Dr. Broncenstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 10:09 AM   #486
baja
Happy camper
 
baja's Avatar
 
Sweet

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 59,999

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ware
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
Soooo sterilizing Couple A AFTER they have a child they have proven to not be able to care for is somehow going to both prevent Couple B from having a child they cannot support, AND help Couple A support the child they already conceived?

Interesting, I don't really see how. Can you be more specific?
One unwanted child is better than two or ten.
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 10:15 AM   #487
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Broncenstein View Post
Never said abortion should be outlawed. Never balked at sex education. Never said being a responsible parent is easy or convenient.
Yet we still don't have mandatory sex education because conservatives think parents can do a good job of it all by themselves. If you were truly concerned about affecting the number of abortions, you would be working to root that mentality out of your party.

I would work to eradicate the desire to kill babies from the liberal side, if there were actually a desire to speak of. Abortions aren't caused by malice.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 10:19 AM   #488
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baja View Post
One unwanted child is better than two or ten.
So how is Couple A's child helped? How is Couple B prevented from conceiving?

If you really think the way to prevent two people from having sex is to tell them that if you have a child you can't care for, we'll fix it so you can have all the sex you want with no chance of pregnancy, well then...here's a cookie.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 10:30 AM   #489
Dr. Broncenstein
Ring of Famer
 
Dr. Broncenstein's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sterile Fields
Posts: 13,630

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Trey Gowdy
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
Yet we still don't have mandatory sex education because conservatives think parents can do a good job of it all by themselves. If you were truly concerned about affecting the number of abortions, you would be working to root that mentality out of your party.

I would work to eradicate the desire to kill babies from the liberal side, if there were actually a desire to speak of. Abortions aren't caused by malice.
Guess you haven't heard about abortion absolutism.

Women have no obligation to make a decision as soon as they possibly can. The only obligation women have is to take the time they need to make the decision that is right for them. Don't we believe that women are moral decision makers, and carefully consider their options when faced with an unwanted pregnancy? Don't we reject the anti-choice rhetoric that women make the decision to have an abortion callously? The pro-choice movement takes a step backward when we judge that a woman has taken too long to make what may be a life-changing decision. Shouldn't we want women to take the time they need to make the best decision, regardless of where they are in the pregnancy?

http://www.slate.com/articles/health...y_butcher.html

I have a personal morality problem with abortion in general, but am not opposed to it in specific situations. I'm not even opposed to its legality in the non-viable first and early second trimester, but certainly think its disgusting that anyone would do this simply for "my body my choice" reasons. That said, Abortion absolutism is ****ing malicious and evil.
Dr. Broncenstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 10:36 AM   #490
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,930
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Broncenstein View Post
[...]but certainly think its disgusting that anyone would do this simply for "my body my choice" reasons.
Why do you want the collective to assert control over a woman's body?
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 10:38 AM   #491
Dr. Broncenstein
Ring of Famer
 
Dr. Broncenstein's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sterile Fields
Posts: 13,630

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Trey Gowdy
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Why do you want the collective to assert control over a woman's body?
I don't. Pretend you can read and try again.
Dr. Broncenstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 10:44 AM   #492
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Broncenstein View Post
Guess you haven't heard about abortion absolutism.

Women have no obligation to make a decision as soon as they possibly can. The only obligation women have is to take the time they need to make the decision that is right for them. Don't we believe that women are moral decision makers, and carefully consider their options when faced with an unwanted pregnancy? Don't we reject the anti-choice rhetoric that women make the decision to have an abortion callously? The pro-choice movement takes a step backward when we judge that a woman has taken too long to make what may be a life-changing decision. Shouldn't we want women to take the time they need to make the best decision, regardless of where they are in the pregnancy?

http://www.slate.com/articles/health...y_butcher.html

I have a personal morality problem with abortion in general, but am not opposed to it in specific situations. I'm not even opposed to its legality in the non-viable first and early second trimester, but certainly think its disgusting that anyone would do this simply for "my body my choice" reasons. That said, Abortion absolutism is ****ing malicious and evil.
I put these people in the same category as I do those who want to outlaw all abortion in any instance, like Tombstone. They should be marginalized and repudiated by their own, because their causes prevent dialogue about the real issue at hand, which is that most women who have abortions do so because they are unable to take care of the child. We can argue all day long about whether their inability to take care of that child is perceived or not, but I'm going to guess that, out of the two of us, you're not the one that has any idea what it's like not to know where your next meal is coming from.

And there are some people in this very thread who claim that the answer to that is abstinence. Let me repeat that. The answer to wondering if you're going to be able to care for a child because of your current living situation is to stop having sex with the person you are legally married to.

Great logic. Poor handle on reality, though.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 10:49 AM   #493
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

And yes, I have a personal moral objection to abortion, as well (which pretty much puts to rest those claims that agnostics don't have morals).

However, I also have a moral objection to people who bury their heads in the sand, play the blame game with the parents, and have no interest in actually helping the children.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 11:00 AM   #494
Dr. Broncenstein
Ring of Famer
 
Dr. Broncenstein's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sterile Fields
Posts: 13,630

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Trey Gowdy
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
And yes, I have a personal moral objection to abortion, as well (which pretty much puts to rest those claims that agnostics don't have morals).

However, I also have a moral objection to people who bury their heads in the sand, play the blame game with the parents, and have no interest in actually helping the children.
I'm agnostic, raised in an agnostic conservative family, raising an agnostic conservative family (which pretty much puts to rest the claims that all conservatives are religious). I find it interesting that you think we conservatives don't care about poor children. It's really quite the opposite. I wish nothing but success and the pursuit of happiness for everyone. I can't speak for all conservatives, but personally I think the methods that liberals envision "helping" the poor often do the exact opposite.
Dr. Broncenstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 11:05 AM   #495
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Broncenstein View Post
I'm agnostic, raised in an agnostic conservative family, raising an agnostic conservative family (which pretty much puts to rest the claims that all conservatives are religious). I find it interesting that you think we conservatives don't care about poor children. It's really quite the opposite. I wish nothing but success and the pursuit of happiness for everyone. I can't speak for all conservatives, but personally I think the methods that liberals envision "helping" the poor often do the exact opposite.
I don't think many liberals would disagree with you that putting food on the table CAN create a cycle of dependency, but it puts food on the table.

What does calling the parents societal leeches and saying private charity and personal responsibility will take care of the problem do?
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 11:16 AM   #496
Dr. Broncenstein
Ring of Famer
 
Dr. Broncenstein's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sterile Fields
Posts: 13,630

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Trey Gowdy
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
I don't think many liberals would disagree with you that putting food on the table CAN create a cycle of dependency, but it puts food on the table.

What does calling the parents societal leeches and saying private charity and personal responsibility will take care of the problem do?
If the food on the table comes from the collective, that by definition is dependency. What does calling the poor victims of society and placing low expectations on them do to take care of the problem?
Dr. Broncenstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 11:21 AM   #497
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Broncenstein View Post
If the food on the table comes from the collective, that by definition is dependency. What does calling the poor victims of society and placing low expectations on them do to take care of the problem?
What's your alternative? All I have heard from you is how irresponsible these parents are, and from yours, how certain segments of society are genetically predisposed toward poverty, lack of personal responsibility, and cultural deviance.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 11:30 AM   #498
Dr. Broncenstein
Ring of Famer
 
Dr. Broncenstein's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sterile Fields
Posts: 13,630

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Trey Gowdy
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
What's your alternative? All I have heard from you is how irresponsible these parents are, and from yours, how certain segments of society are genetically predisposed toward poverty.
What's yours? Placing low expectations and victim status on entire class of people for generations certainly hasn't helped, even if your intentions are good.
Dr. Broncenstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 11:49 AM   #499
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Broncenstein View Post
What's yours? Placing low expectations and victim status on entire class of people for generations certainly hasn't helped, even if your intentions are good.
Please forgive any typos, I'm typing on my phone.

My suggestion is to start by requiring employers to offer paid (or government subsidized) maternity and paternity leave, establishing government-run or subsidized child care facilities (or offering vouchers for private care facilities) for parents who are working or looking for work, and welfare for poor families, all dependent upon the parents' willingness to either work, look for a job for a limited time, or be placed in a job found for them. Too many people feel they are "above" certain jobs...if McDonalds is hiring and you need a job, sorry, suck it up. You've got kids to support.

That's just addressing the result, though. It's not prevention. We need to get serious about sex education in this country and stop treating it like a yucky idea. The way the religious right approaches sex education is detrimental to society as a whole. Sex is not a bad evil yucky thing inspired by satan, it's a natural process that every person wants to start doing the moment they start noticing the opposite sex. Unplanned pregnancy is just as much a problem in rural Christian communities as it is in the inner city.

Sex and health education needs to be universal, and REQUIRED. Even for home schooled children. And it must be done according to state-sanctioned standards...MEDICAL standards. All children should be taught that abstinence is the only TRUE way to prevent pregnancy and disease, but that sex is a natural process, and that their bodies are not magical temples but actual biochemical machines with many different processes, needs and uses. I simply do not trust the religious right to do this on their own in a responsible way. It must be done in public, and BY the public.

I think this is a good start to answering the question of how to actually reduce the number of abortions, while actually helping to improve both overall public health and less reliance on the public dole.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2013, 11:50 AM   #500
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,838
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
Soooo sterilizing Couple A AFTER they have a child they have proven to not be able to care for is somehow going to both prevent Couple B from having a child they cannot support, AND help Couple A support the child they already conceived?

Interesting, I don't really see how. Can you be more specific?
If you can't care for child A, then give child to couple B lol.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DeLay: Illegal immigrants fill jobs that aborted babies can't Spider War, Religion and Politics Thread 7 04-18-2013 09:23 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:41 PM.


Denver Broncos