Pelosi says birth control will help economy

[TastesLikeChicken]

Pelosi is way too late to help the economy with birth control. Her parents apparently already had unprotected sex at least once.

 

[bbdub333]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: bbdub333

So please explain your original comment... how are the Republicans inserting a wedge issue into the economic problems again?

Republicans get their panties in a wad because of 100+ million being allocated to Family planning programs. Something that makes republicans start ringing their hands because they dont want to see their tax money being spent on the devils work.

There are 500+ BILLION dollars of spending in the Dem stimulus package. Why is it that people like McConnell and Boehner trot out this 100+ million family planning program as one of the main reasons to oppose the stimulus package?

Where is it being painted as a main reason to oppose the package? The one comment I saw from Boehner stated that this is just a provision that shouldn't be in there.

I will tell you why, because republicans don't like family planning period. Again, its the devils work.

What better way to gain support for your OWN stimulus package? one that is based solely on tax cuts and program cuts?

By pointing out some of the needless excessive spending of the opposition? You are the one turning this into an ideological argument. You launched into the abortion argument instantly, painting anyone who opposed this provision for *any* means as an ultra-religious republican. You can't accept the fact that some of us object to this spending as it has no real purpose being in this bill. The amount of money spent on it is irrelevant. How many other provision exist which will spend small amounts of money on irrelevant interests? How much smaller could this package be and still accomplish the 'stimulating' goal with the economy?

That is the definition of a wedge issue right there. I can't blame republicans for doing it, it is effective. Instead of throwing up arguments against the entire $500+ billion dollar spending proposals why not just single out one individual program and play the 'composition fallacy' with the rest of the stimulus package? We are all stupid enough to fall for it. Well, some of us are....did that explanation work for you?

So you are saying that it's stupid to try to figure out where all our money is going, and oppose it if we feel it has no place in this bill? Do you think that we should let them spend whatever they want, no matter the price, if it may have some indirect effect on our economy in 10-20 years?

As bloated and sickening as this whole stimulus idea has become, I still object to excessive spending on projects like this that do not have a DIRECT and nearly IMMEDIATE impact on our economy. We all know Pelosi inserted this provision on ideological grounds, because she knew she could justify it under the "we need this to save the economy" argument. It has nothing to do with our current economic situation. Nothing. If it needs to be done, do it, but do it on its own merits.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Pelosi is way too late to help the economy with birth control. Her parents apparently already had unprotected sex at least once.

Is it too late for an abortion?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Planned Parenthood for starters.

Which would you prefer? Small amounts of your taxes going towards paying for a fraction of a woman's abortion under the assumption that the woman is a low income inner or large amounts of your taxes going towards all of the other social services that come with unwanted child births?

It's not so much about the money...it's about the principle. I believe that a fertilized egg is a human being at conception and it's willful destruction being paramount to murder. You or others may see if differently...which is your perogative...however, your morality is not my morality and I will never accept the murder of innocents under the guise of "choice".

Personally I'd like to see the Dems revamp Bush's Pharmacy Drug Plan to include free contraceptives to low income groups...I question the efficiency of government agencies and agendas of groups like Planned Parenthood.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Aikouka
I've never liked the idea of supporting people that just can't stop fucking when they can't even bother to "suit up" and know they can't afford the outcome. Responsibility doesn't even exist anymore in that realm =\.

But hey, can I get some free condoms out of this deal? Maybe it can at least benefit me . (This is where you guys insert remarks like, "Why, you'll never need them anyway" )

Well you can keep it from getting on your stomach and chest!


/sorry, too easy - couldn't resist.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: bbdub333

So please explain your original comment... how are the Republicans inserting a wedge issue into the economic problems again?

Republicans get their panties in a wad because of 100+ million being allocated to Family planning programs. Something that makes republicans start ringing their hands because they dont want to see their tax money being spent on the devils work.

There are 500+ BILLION dollars of spending in the Dem stimulus package. Why is it that people like McConnell and Boehner trot out this 100+ million family planning program as one of the main reasons to oppose the stimulus package?

Where is it being painted as a main reason to oppose the package? The one comment I saw from Boehner stated that this is just a provision that shouldn't be in there.

I will tell you why, because republicans don't like family planning period. Again, its the devils work.

What better way to gain support for your OWN stimulus package? one that is based solely on tax cuts and program cuts?

By pointing out some of the needless excessive spending of the opposition? You are the one turning this into an ideological argument. You launched into the abortion argument instantly, painting anyone who opposed this provision for *any* means as an ultra-religious republican. You can't accept the fact that some of us object to this spending as it has no real purpose being in this bill. The amount of money spent on it is irrelevant. How many other provision exist which will spend small amounts of money on irrelevant interests? How much smaller could this package be and still accomplish the 'stimulating' goal with the economy?

That is the definition of a wedge issue right there. I can't blame republicans for doing it, it is effective. Instead of throwing up arguments against the entire $500+ billion dollar spending proposals why not just single out one individual program and play the 'composition fallacy' with the rest of the stimulus package? We are all stupid enough to fall for it. Well, some of us are....did that explanation work for you?

So you are saying that it's stupid to try to figure out where all our money is going, and oppose it if we feel it has no place in this bill? Do you think that we should let them spend whatever they want, no matter the price, if it may have some indirect effect on our economy in 10-20 years?

As bloated and sickening as this whole stimulus idea has become, I still object to excessive spending on projects like this that do not have a DIRECT and nearly IMMEDIATE impact on our economy. We all know Pelosi inserted this provision on ideological grounds, because she knew she could justify it under the "we need this to save the economy" argument. It has nothing to do with our current economic situation. Nothing. If it needs to be done, do it, but do it on its own merits.

It is a focal point of the republican opposition to any dem spending bill. check google news.

And I can turn that around and ask Boehner and crew why propose a stimulus package that relies solely on tax cuts and program cuts? If they don't like spending money on family planning programs then that is fine but out of the $500+ billion dolars proposed in spending I am sure that SOME of that spending would be useful in stimulating the economy.

Hypothetical:

I don't like Boehners plan to cut (hypothetical) business taxes that are used to lower the employer exposure to health related costs (again hypothetical Im just making this up) which would amount to approx 100+million in employer savings across the country.

Therefore I don't support the republican stimulus bill. <<does that make sense to you?

I am certain that SOME tax cuts are worthy and useful and needed, I am not going to reject an entire stimulus plan (or by extension reject its authors) because of some component of the plan I don't agree with. You might not like Pelosi, or Reid, or whoever...but if you think you are going to get a stimulus plan that has ZERO spending then you are living a pipe dream.

Originally posted by: bbdub333

So you are saying that it's stupid to try to figure out where all our money is going, and oppose it if we feel it has no place in this bill? Do you think that we should let them spend whatever they want, no matter the price, if it may have some indirect effect on our economy in 10-20 years?

No, the bigger point is this: The Republicans stimulus bill relies solely on tax cuts and program cuts. I think the dems stimulus bill is somewhere in the vacinity of 60-40 spending to cutting.

Which bill makes more sense to you? I think it is stupid to sit on Capitol hill and diss a dem package and then offer up an alternative that is brazenly partisan. Maybe I give the republican leadership too much credit, maybe they are that stupid. I don't appreciate the sales pitch by the republicans. I also don't appreciate the product. I can see it as a negotiating strat to open up with such a blindingly partisan alternative....but thats about it.

By-the-by... Obama seems to agree with Republicans that family planning shouldn't be in the stimulus bill. I think provisions for spending for family planing has been taking out of the dem package.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Genx87
I think I find delicious about this is she obviously believe low income earners will recieve this much needed contraception. Meaning she doesnt believe these low income earners can pull themselves out of the hole they are in and will be a net negative on the govt and society as a whole. Just remember that the next time you hear hew whining about being for the poor.

If you're living in poverty the last think you need is another mouth to feed.

Then you ought to go buy contraception yourself, eh.

We do. My wife is on the pill.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Pelosi is way too late to help the economy with birth control. Her parents apparently already had unprotected sex at least once.

Is it too late for an abortion?

For you?

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Pelosi is way too late to help the economy with birth control. Her parents apparently already had unprotected sex at least once.

Is it too late for an abortion?

For you?

Trolls like attention. Just ignore him.

 

[CLite]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Genx87
I think I find delicious about this is she obviously believe low income earners will recieve this much needed contraception. Meaning she doesnt believe these low income earners can pull themselves out of the hole they are in and will be a net negative on the govt and society as a whole. Just remember that the next time you hear her whining about being for the poor.

That said this is supposed to be a stimulus package that creates jobs by building infrastructure. WTF does contraception have to do with this? I bet once it is all said and done and fails to do anything we can examine where the money went and find a decent % going to black holes and special interest groups that added nothing meaningful to the economy.

I share your concern regarding how effectively the money will be spent...if a large percentage of the money goes to special interest groups who also have abortion agendas then we have an epic fail IMO. Contraception (especially the pill) should be easily obtainable at negligible or no cost. "Administration costs" should be kept to a minimum and should not be used to fund any proabortion or related activities. Somehow I think I'm dreaming.

Your Contraception knowledge is severely lacking.

You don't know how the pill works. It does not prevent inception of the fertilized egg, it's preventative powers come from altering the lining of the uterus to prevent the fertilized egg from staying around. This is how all contraceptive measures work (besides condoms clearly), therefore if you don't support abortion you shouldn't support contraception. The pill is just like the morning after pill and abortions, no difference at all if you believe a fertilized egg represents human life. (I'm pro-choice btw, but I have to point out hyprocrisy where I see it)

That said, Planned Parenthood is an amazing organization and acts as a huge support network for less fortunate woman. If a good amount of tax dollars go to such an organization I would have no qualms with that.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Planned Parenthood for starters.

Which would you prefer? Small amounts of your taxes going towards paying for a fraction of a woman's abortion under the assumption that the woman is a low income inner or large amounts of your taxes going towards all of the other social services that come with unwanted child births?

It's not so much about the money...it's about the principle. I believe that a fertilized egg is a human being at conception and it's willful destruction being paramount to murder. You or others may see if differently...which is your perogative...however, your morality is not my morality and I will never accept the murder of innocents under the guise of "choice".

Personally I'd like to see the Dems revamp Bush's Pharmacy Drug Plan to include free contraceptives to low income groups...I question the efficiency of government agencies and agendas of groups like Planned Parenthood.

Ok, as long as you understand that your desire for the government to support what you support means a lot more of everyone's tax dollars being spent on unwanted child births then that's fine. I don't agree with it, but at least you understand your priorities along with what is being sacrificed to maintain them.

I also agree with the above poster about Planned Parenthood. They do a lot to try and help many women who have no where to turn. It goes way beyond simply providing partial funding for an abortion.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Pneumothorax

Originally posted by: halik
Err where is the flaw in her reasoning?

Low income people having kids is an instant draw on social services; paying for birth control is hella cheaper than medicaid, welfare and so on.

I'm surprised the dem's even supported this as for every pregnancy prevented means 1 less vote for them. lol

Heh true actually, but my main point stands. As a matter of fact, I would expand that on that just about every unwanted pregnancy ends up being a draw on social services.

 

[Mxylplyx]

I think it's stupid that this argument is about whether the government should or should not be in the business of giving out free contraceptives. What this argument should be about is whether this initiative should be part of an emergency stimulus package, and I think the answer to that is no. Obama apparently does to, because I read an article this morning where Obama apparently quietly had this initiative dropped, and scolded Pelosi for introducing a wedge issue like this into much needed legislation. Derailing important legislation with non-related bullshit like this is the reason Washington doesnt work.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Planned Parenthood for starters.

Which would you prefer? Small amounts of your taxes going towards paying for a fraction of a woman's abortion under the assumption that the woman is a low income inner or large amounts of your taxes going towards all of the other social services that come with unwanted child births?

It's not so much about the money...it's about the principle. I believe that a fertilized egg is a human being at conception and it's willful destruction being paramount to murder. You or others may see if differently...which is your perogative...however, your morality is not my morality and I will never accept the murder of innocents under the guise of "choice".

Personally I'd like to see the Dems revamp Bush's Pharmacy Drug Plan to include free contraceptives to low income groups...I question the efficiency of government agencies and agendas of groups like Planned Parenthood.

How exactly do you draw that line? Egg and sperm separate aren't a "human being" but together they are? What about if they're in the same petri dish?

Moreover, is miscarriage is death of a human being?

And here's the kicker, what about parthenogenesis?

It's fun trying to fit antiquated moires into today's world...

 

[dyna]

With Pelosi's logic you might as well put in the Stimulus bucket to build a giant wall on the southern border. We would save money on social services and unwanted births if so many illegal's weren't crossing the border.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Planned Parenthood for starters.

Which would you prefer? Small amounts of your taxes going towards paying for a fraction of a woman's abortion under the assumption that the woman is a low income inner or large amounts of your taxes going towards all of the other social services that come with unwanted child births?

It's not so much about the money...it's about the principle. I believe that a fertilized egg is a human being at conception and it's willful destruction being paramount to murder. You or others may see if differently...which is your perogative...however, your morality is not my morality and I will never accept the murder of innocents under the guise of "choice".

Personally I'd like to see the Dems revamp Bush's Pharmacy Drug Plan to include free contraceptives to low income groups...I question the efficiency of government agencies and agendas of groups like Planned Parenthood.

How exactly do you draw that line? Egg and sperm separate aren't a "human being" but together they are? What about if they're in the same petri dish?

Moreover, is miscarriage is death of a human being?

And here's the kicker, what about parthenogenesis?

It's fun trying to fit antiquated moires into today's world...

I won't bother answering your questions as you already have all the answers. But thanks for taking the time to share your great wisdom with us and obviously superior intellect. :roll:

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Contraceptive solutions to prevent unwanted pregnancies are a hell of a lot cheaper than all of the social services that sometimes come after those unwanted pregnancies. This one seems like a no brainer.

In a "stimulus" package? What kind of stimulus is she thinking about anyways?

*shrug*

I don't really care what they call it. I stand by my point.

This stimulus package is being sold as a way to build infrastrucuture and create jobs. This is just a govt program with a never ending black hole that does neither.

If Pelosi wants to fund this take it out of the "stimulus" package and let it stand on its own.

I'm fine with that too. I'd prefer that this fund were separate from the stimulus, but overall I really don't really care. As long as whatever they are doing is something that I believe is beneficial then I am happy. I feel represented and I feel like they are looking after the common welfare of us all.

In some sense though, her logic is not far from the truth. Let's face it. A great many unwanted pregnancies are a result of sex without using contraceptives due to cost and those pregnancies are also very often coupled with severe fiscal challenges. After birth, these adults will often go into heavier debt to make ends meet that they may or may not pay off. They often need to make use of social services. They often need to stop whatever they were doing to make sure they lead a successful and responsible life such as school. The list goes on and on. All of these things do have a negative impact on our economy.

I can agree with you long term contraception is an ideal solution though I question if it will change people's behavior. My issue comes with the fact this is being bundled in a major stimulus package when it clearly in my eyes fails the litmus test for the spirit of the legislation.

 

[Moonbeam]

I have three girlfriends and none will have unprotected sex. One likes liquor, one likes chocolate, and one likes flowers. Maybe now I'll be able to afford some rubbers.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Contraceptive solutions to prevent unwanted pregnancies are a hell of a lot cheaper than all of the social services that sometimes come after those unwanted pregnancies. This one seems like a no brainer.

In a "stimulus" package? What kind of stimulus is she thinking about anyways?

*shrug*

I don't really care what they call it. I stand by my point.

The point being that this is nothing other than a year's worth of pork barrel spending driven by the drum beat of fear.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I'm all for handing out as much contraception as possible, worldwide, here at home, wherever.

Yeah, all that shit should be free. I mean come on! Think about all the kids that could be STD free and all the kids now that don't have access.

Obama is gonna pass the bills to bring back the condom machine in highschool bathrooms! Except this time it won't cost a quarter.

 

[yllus]

Where Have All the Criminals Gone?

Perhaps the most dramatic effect of legalized abortion, and one that would take years to reveal itself, was its impact on crime.

In the early 1990s, just as the first cohort of children born after Roe v. Wade was hitting its late teen years?the years during which young men enter their criminal prime?the rate of crime began to fall. What this cohort was missing, of course, were the children who stood the greatest chance of becoming criminals.

And the crime rate continued to fall as an entire generation came of age minus the children whose mothers had not wanted to bring a child into the world. Legalized abortion led to less unwantedness; unwantedness leads to high crime; legalized abortion, therefore, led to less crime.

How can we tell if the abortion-crime link is a case of causality rather than simply correlation?

One way to test the effect of abortion on crime would be to measure crime data in the five states where abortion was made legal before the Supreme Court extended abortion rights to the rest of the country.

In New York, California, Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii, a woman had been able to obtain a legal abortion for at least two years before Roe v. Wade. And indeed, those early-legalizing states saw crime begin to fall earlier than the other forty-five states and the District of Columbia. Between 1988 and 1994, violent crime in the earlylegalizing states fell 13 percent compared to the other states; between 1994 and 1997, their murder rates fell 23 percent more than those of the other states.

But what if those early legalizers simply got lucky? What else might we look for in the data to establish an abortion-crime link? One factor to look for would be a correlation between each state's abortion rate and its crime rate.

Sure enough, the states with the highest abortion rates in the 1970s experienced the greatest crime drops in the 1990s, while states with low abortion rates experienced smaller crime drops. (This correlation exists even when controlling for a variety of factors that influence crime: a state's level of incarceration, number of police, and its economic situation.)

Since 1985, states with high abortion rates have experienced a roughly 30 percent drop in crime relative to low-abortion states. (New York City had high abortion rates and lay within an early-legalizing state, a pair of facts that further dampen the claim that innovative policing caused the crime drop.)

Moreover, there was no link between a given state's abortion rate and its crime rate before the late 1980s?when the first cohort affected by legalized abortion was reaching its criminal prime?which is yet another indication that Roe v. Wade was indeed the event that tipped the crime scale.

There are even more correlations, positive and negative, that shore up the abortion-crime link.

One imagines that if abortion correlates to a drop in the crime rate, a drop in the number of unplanned children in the U.S. correlates to the country's social safety net being less burdened.

 

[CLite]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Planned Parenthood for starters.

Which would you prefer? Small amounts of your taxes going towards paying for a fraction of a woman's abortion under the assumption that the woman is a low income inner or large amounts of your taxes going towards all of the other social services that come with unwanted child births?

It's not so much about the money...it's about the principle. I believe that a fertilized egg is a human being at conception and it's willful destruction being paramount to murder. You or others may see if differently...which is your perogative...however, your morality is not my morality and I will never accept the murder of innocents under the guise of "choice".

Personally I'd like to see the Dems revamp Bush's Pharmacy Drug Plan to include free contraceptives to low income groups...I question the efficiency of government agencies and agendas of groups like Planned Parenthood.

How exactly do you draw that line? Egg and sperm separate aren't a "human being" but together they are? What about if they're in the same petri dish?

Moreover, is miscarriage is death of a human being?

And here's the kicker, what about parthenogenesis?

It's fun trying to fit antiquated moires into today's world...

I won't bother answering your questions as you already have all the answers. But thanks for taking the time to share your great wisdom with us and obviously superior intellect. :roll:

DOC, please answer this. The pill kills a fertilized egg, by forcing it to be flushed. The pill does NOT prevent fertilization. However you have stated you support the pill but not abortion. Please explain?


*disclaimer: I'm pro-choice, but the simple fact is that the pill kills a fertilized egg, there is no debate about that*

 

[theeedude]

Of course it helps the economy, money not spent on birth control is money that states and women will have left over to spend on other things to stimulate the economy.

 

[Budmantom]

nm

 

[bbdub333]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Which bill makes more sense to you? I think it is stupid to sit on Capitol hill and diss a dem package and then offer up an alternative that is brazenly partisan. Maybe I give the republican leadership too much credit, maybe they are that stupid. I don't appreciate the sales pitch by the republicans. I also don't appreciate the product. I can see it as a negotiating strat to open up with such a blindingly partisan alternative....but thats about it.

So how does, "This bill is better than that bill" become, "This bill is good and that bill is bad"? Can you see the distinction? The Dem bill could be far better for all I care... the Rep bill may be simply awful for all I care as well. Just because the Dem bill may be "better" doesn't make it "good", you see?

Why can't we take out all the stupid spending from the Dem bill so that it can do it's job with the least amount of spending possible? Why should we accept this $100+ million appropriation when it won't have a quantifiable, immediate, significant impact on our CURRENT situation? Let a program like this stand alone, or put it in with another, relevant bill.

By-the-by... Obama seems to agree with Republicans that family planning shouldn't be in the stimulus bill. I think provisions for spending for family planing has been taking out of the dem package.

Well, gee, I guess that wasn't too hard.