Be a Supporter!

The Gender Gap

  • 3,340 Views
  • 103 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
Ravariel
Ravariel
  • Member since: Apr. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Musician
The Gender Gap 2012-04-17 06:29:05 Reply

Mason posted a bit about this in his Obama thread, which you should all read if you haven't already, but I felt it needed a thread all it's own, because it goes beyond just the Presidential election.

The issue being: the republican "war on women" and the resulting gender gap between the our two candidates.

The Dems have been attempting to make a lot of political hay over this, and have in some ways succeeded (by the very fact that "republican war on women" has entered the mainstream vocab), while the republicans have been falling over themselves to try and claim that no such "war" exists.

Beyond the obvious examples of congress attempting to defund Planned Parenthood and the resulting kerfluffle over Limbaugh's personal attacks against Sandra Fluke, there are other events as well. From the trivial, and mostly just poorly-stated comments from Romney about giving stay-at-home mothers the "dignity of work" (which is a bit ironic considering the recent fluff over Hillary Rosen and Ann Romney's dust-up over twitter), to the much more disturbing laws in Virginia (thankfully failed) and Iowa that attempt to put personhood onto eggs, fertilized or not, and require transvaginal ultrasounds before abortion proceedings. Even more heartbreaking are stories like this which are a direct effect of the types of abortion laws that republicans are, for the most part, responsible for. Nevermind the shockingly (I literally couldn't believe something like this could come out of a public figure's mouth... how can one be so tone-deaf?) insensitive comment: "'We acknowledge the tragedy that occurs with a poor prenatal diagnosis for the baby. But isn't it more humane for the baby to die in a loving manner with comfort care and in the arms of her parents than by the intentional painful death through abortion?"

Additionally, bills in congress attempting to remove federal tax breaks for organizations that perform abortions tried to re-define rape in a way that would not include incidents of incest. Also, one Georgian State Lawmaker has tried to change the legal codification of rape victims to "accusers," while no such change is in the pipes for non-gendered crimes such as burglary.

Some other instances:

South Dakota bill may allow killing of abortion doctors under the guise of "self defense and defense of others"

GOP trying to eliminate all funding for Title X family planning for low-income families.

Wisconsin's Governor Scott Walker recently repealed the State's Equal Pay law, making it more difficult for victims of discrimination to bring suit.

The Violence Against Women Act has drawn ire from many organizations on the right, and from some in congress.

The result of this has been a widening gender gap in the support of each candidate. While overall women have supported Democrats by 5-10 points (as Mason rightly pointed out), that gap has widened to nearly 20 points in recent polling, which is one thing that's helping Obama stay comfortably ahead of Romney in national polls, the import of which is obviously up for debate (I personally think that state-by-state comparisons are more important).

Some on the right have tried to respond by saying this "war on women" is a figment of the left's imagination, likeninng it to a "War on Caterpillars", or claiming that Hillary Rosen's comments about Ann Romney, and the resulting backlash of Republican Lawmakers are proof that they are concerned about women's issues as well. In that case, where were the Republicans in denouncing Rush in his attacks against Sandra Fluke (because Obama and the First Lady, as well as other folk on the left were nearly as quick to denounce Rosen's comments as those on the right)?

What say you Newgrounds, is this an issue that could sink the GOP hopefuls, even as economic news continues to be sub-par?


Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-17 11:07:54 Reply

I'm not sur ehow much it will effect the election. Voters are fickle and (for the most part) stupid. They have the attention span of toddlers and will glom onto whatever is the "in" issue at the time of the election. If the GOP can muzzle the idiots amongst its ranks for long enough, it will present an opportunity to hide the war on Women and all of the other crazy stuff under a more appealing issue.

However, if the GOP is unable to hide the "war on women" aspect of their platform it will, at the very least, create a strong obstacle to their reelection. Again, this is another case of the GOP deciding to stick its head up its ass in an election where they might have had an easy trip to the Presidency had they been smart. The GOP can only fuck things up so many times before they lose any chance of winning

Memorize
Memorize
  • Member since: Jun. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Animator
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-17 14:22:27 Reply

At 4/17/12 06:29 AM, Ravariel wrote:
What say you Newgrounds, is this an issue that could sink the GOP hopefuls, even as economic news continues to be sub-par?

1) Sandra Fluke isn't a slut. After all, a slut wouldn't force you to pay for their birth control.

2) Any organization, Planned Parenthood or otherwise shouldn't receive Federal Funding to begin with. I think it would be wildly entertaining to see how liberals would respond to a Federally Funded NRA.

I would put yourself into the shoes of those pro-life, mostly Republican individuals. First. you legalize abortion across the board... ok, that's fine.

Then, you use the government to forcibly take their money and fund abortion providers (regardless of whether or not that money is used for abortions isn't the point; you're basically giving THEIR money to the "murderers" as they see it).

And now on top of that, you're demanding they subsidize other people's sex lives. Which got major headlines when a woman who attends one of the most prestigious law schools in the country, and who will make over $160,000 starting salary, claimed she was a "victim" because she didn't receive any free birth control provided by her school.

Considering these events, why are you surprised by religious groups and pro-lifers responding in the way they're doing?

It's called blowback. Kind of like how decades of interventionism lead to the Iran Hostage Crisis and later 9/11.

This isn't so much about a GOP war on women as it is Liberals demanding free shit.

Ravariel
Ravariel
  • Member since: Apr. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Musician
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-17 16:34:11 Reply

At 4/17/12 02:22 PM, Memorize wrote: 2) Any organization, Planned Parenthood or otherwise shouldn't receive Federal Funding to begin with. I think it would be wildly entertaining to see how liberals would respond to a Federally Funded NRA.

Likely with a huge shit-storm, I don't disagree. However, there's a lot of false-equivalency in that statement, even if you don't realize it. The problem with the comparison comes in the realms in which those two organizations act, and their effect on the wider population. PP has a very real public health benefit that is something they would have a difficult time doing without Federal help, as nearly half of their funding comes from that area. It would cost taxpayers more if PP were not around... it just wouldn't be as obvious a line to draw between cause and effect.

Then, you use the government to forcibly take their money and fund abortion providers (regardless of whether or not that money is used for abortions isn't the point; you're basically giving THEIR money to the "murderers" as they see it).

Well, I don't see that as such a fine distinction, but I do acknowledge the point.

And now on top of that, you're demanding they subsidize other people's sex lives. Which got major headlines when a woman who attends one of the most prestigious law schools in the country, and who will make over $160,000 starting salary, claimed she was a "victim" because she didn't receive any free birth control provided by her school.

Yeaaaaah, and here's where you jump your libertarian rails. That's not what she argued at all. Nor is the issue even about sex. Yes sex is involved, and it's all sexy and scandalous to think about people having sex all the time and it's taboo and sex sex sexsexsexsex. Oh my god, my puritan heart may just flutter it's way out of my chest at the thought of all this sex.

The issue is HEALTH. Not sex, though, as I said, sex is a part of health (both physical and mental/emotional). PP also provides counselling to expecting mothers, resources that allow low-income families to feed, house, clothe and educate their children. Most of the crap they do that the right has a problem with is paid for out-of-pocket by clients or through charitable donations.

Federal budgetary concerns are also irrelevant as the amount of money involved is minuscule (relatively speaking).

Considering these events, why are you surprised by religious groups and pro-lifers responding in the way they're doing?

Surprised? Only at their blatant gall. And their bullshit "who, me!?" act afterward. And disappointed in mans inhumanity toward (wo)man *sniff*. </bleedingheart>

This isn't so much about a GOP war on women as it is Liberals demanding free shit.

Yeeeah, no. Of course, I notice you mentioned nothing of the other examples posted, many of which had nothing to do with PP or abortion. Curious, that.


Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-17 19:29:03 Reply

At 4/17/12 02:22 PM, Memorize wrote: 2) Any organization, Planned Parenthood or otherwise shouldn't receive Federal Funding to begin with. I think it would be wildly entertaining to see how liberals would respond to a Federally Funded NRA.

Not even close. I think you should take some time to research what Planned Parenthood actually does. This is more like religious subsidies where about 10% of that money goes to persecuting people, even though the other 90% goes to very honorable and needed purposes.

Then, you use the government to forcibly take their money and fund abortion providers (regardless of whether or not that money is used for abortions isn't the point; you're basically giving THEIR money to the "murderers" as they see it).

The same way my money goes to subsidize big industries that outsource? The same way my money goes to pay for military campaigns that serve 0 tactical and strategic value? The same way my money goes to subsidize religious institution through their tax exemptions?

And now on top of that, you're demanding they subsidize other people's sex lives. Which got major headlines when a woman who attends one of the most prestigious law schools in the country, and who will make over $160,000 starting salary, claimed she was a "victim" because she didn't receive any free birth control provided by her school.

Well, if the goal was to stop abortions...

This argument is a load of bullshit. You want to stop abortions, but then you get pissed about contraceptives? You might as well try to fix the defecit by increasing spending and cutting taxes (oh wait, Conservatives already do that).

This isn't so much about a GOP war on women as it is Liberals demanding free shit.

No. It's a war on women. If it were men wanting this stuff the GOP would be drooling all over it. Just check out the proposed law against masturbation in Oklahoma. If you can't see the hypocrisy there, well, there's no hope for you.

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-17 19:59:20 Reply

Personally I believe that it is being blown way out of proportion. Insulting a woman does not mean you hate women. Nobody said democrats hated men for insulting men. Not wanting to pay for their birth control or fund places that give abortions does not mean you want to restrict privileges. It means you don't want to pay for it. Wanting to remove funding does not mean you hate the group. It means that you want to remove the public funding.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
bismuthfeldspar
bismuthfeldspar
  • Member since: Mar. 2, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Blank Slate
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-17 19:59:59 Reply

Republicans aren't at war with women they're just ignorant religious fanatics, Democrats are calling them sexist for political gain.

Sexism is a serious issue and if anything feminists should be offended by this abuse of the anti-sexism movement.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-17 21:36:27 Reply

Great post Rav!

I think we're going to see poll numbers showing a gap of 20% for awhile yet...however I think they will eventually settle down to historic levels. I think we'll probably see women breaking for Obama closer to the 55% mark instead of the 52% mark but not much higher.

But in the end, I think the GOP WoW narrative will fizzle out in a few months and the huge bump will vanish. Replaced by some new scandal or crisis which will eclipse this issue. God help us if the Euro collapses soon!


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Memorize
Memorize
  • Member since: Jun. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Animator
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-17 21:52:15 Reply

At 4/17/12 04:34 PM, Ravariel wrote:
PP has a very real public health benefit that is something they would have a difficult time doing without Federal help, as nearly half of their funding comes from that area. It would cost taxpayers more if PP were not around... it just wouldn't be as obvious a line to draw between cause and effect.

It doesn't matter if it's a public benefit. The only thing that does matter is if it's legal or not.

You still have to also deal with the fact that you're taking money from people who equate abortion to murder and using their money to fund those "murderers", regardless of how the money is spent.

Besides, "public benefit" is subjective. Anyone could also make the case that gun promotion is a public benefit by virtue of the Second Amendment (and legally speaking, this would have a much better chance of being argued since it's actually listed as a "right")

But even still, money to either organization is unconstitutional. Even to faith based groups.

The issue is HEALTH. Not sex, though, as I said, sex is a part of health (both physical and mental/emotional).

Explain to me how contraception equals insurance.

Explain to me how other people I've never met who voluntarily decide to do stupid things, is somehow my fault and I should have to pay for it.

PP also provides counselling to expecting mothers, resources that allow low-income families to feed, house, clothe and educate their children.

So do other organizations, and none of them were started by black hating, anti-Semites who spoke at KKK rallies.... your point?

Most of the crap they do that the right has a problem with is paid for out-of-pocket by clients or through charitable donations.

So why do they need Federal Assistance?

Yeeeah, no. Of course, I notice you mentioned nothing of the other examples posted, many of which had nothing to do with PP or abortion. Curious, that.

Those were the only ones I had an issue with.

At 4/17/12 07:29 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
Not even close. I think you should take some time to research what Planned Parenthood actually does.

I know exactly what they do, you fucking idiot.

I never said abortion was their major concern. I even alluded to that when I said that the Federal dollars weren't supposed to go directly to abortions.

The point was that they still provide abortions. So telling people who consider abortion murder that they MUST have their tax dollars go to the very people whom they consider "murderers" will cause blowback.

The same way my money goes to subsidize big industries that outsource? The same way my money goes to pay for military campaigns that serve 0 tactical and strategic value? The same way my money goes to subsidize religious institution through their tax exemptions?

Considering I'm against ALL of those, aren't you just exposing your own hypocrisy in your support for some but not others?

Also, the last one doesn't make any sense and doesn't belong being categorized with the others. For the simple reason being that: Not taxing someone (letting them keep THEIR OWN money) =/= Giving other people's money to someone else.

One you should've put there was: Giving subsidies to faith based organizations.

But nice try. You're still an idiot.

This argument is a load of bullshit. You want to stop abortions, but then you get pissed about contraceptives?

No, I'm all for contraception.

What pisses me off is someone demanding that others pay for their contraception.

Especially someone who goes to a prestigious law school who will be making a starting salary of $160,000 upon graduation WHILE claiming to be a VICTIM because the school isn't giving her "Free" birth control.

You might as well try to fix the defecit by increasing spending and cutting taxes (oh wait, Conservatives already do that).


This isn't so much about a GOP war on women as it is Liberals demanding free shit.
No. It's a war on women.

And you're still fucking retarded.

Ravariel
Ravariel
  • Member since: Apr. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Musician
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-17 23:37:14 Reply

At 4/17/12 09:52 PM, Memorize wrote: You still have to also deal with the fact that you're taking money from people who equate abortion to murder and using their money to fund those "murderers", regardless of how the money is spent.

Yeah, welcome to living in a democratic society. You have to pay for shit you don't want. It's the price of entry.

Besides, "public benefit" is subjective. Anyone could also make the case that gun promotion is a public benefit by virtue of the Second Amendment (and legally speaking, this would have a much better chance of being argued since it's actually listed as a "right")

When a program's existence decreases costs to taxpayers, while increasing the health and well-being of people in the society, then there's not much "subjective" about it.

But even still, money to either organization is unconstitutional. Even to faith based groups.

Ha! Okay, I'll bite. Prove it.

Explain to me how contraception equals insurance.

I think you need to educate yourself on the benefits of family planning, education, and prophylactics in general if you're really unsure where the connections lie. It's not a difficult journey.

Explain to me how other people I've never met who voluntarily decide to do stupid things, is somehow my fault and I should have to pay for it.

Again, welcome to this thing we call "society". If you want it to thrive, you spread the costs of public benefit around, so that those who are more likely to need it can afford it when they do.

So do other organizations, and none of them were started by black hating, anti-Semites who spoke at KKK rallies.... your point?

Ooh, a red herring! Should I chase it?

Most of the crap they do that the right has a problem with is paid for out-of-pocket by clients or through charitable donations.
So why do they need Federal Assistance?

Maybe for the other 90% of the shit they do?

The point was that they still provide abortions. So telling people who consider abortion murder that they MUST have their tax dollars go to the very people whom they consider "murderers" will cause blowback.

Those same people happily pay thousands of dollars to, and give millions in tax breaks to organizations that harbor and encourage pedophiles. Their feelings are irrelevant. See? I can do this, too!

No, I'm all for contraception.

What pisses me off is someone demanding that others pay for their contraception.

So... contraception is good, but getting it to those who most need it and are least able to afford it is bad? Gotcha.

Especially someone who goes to a prestigious law school who will be making a starting salary of $160,000 upon graduation WHILE claiming to be a VICTIM because the school isn't giving her "Free" birth control.

You really didn't listen to her testimony at all did you?


Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-18 00:34:46 Reply

At 4/17/12 11:37 PM, Ravariel wrote: Yeah, welcome to living in a democratic society. You have to pay for shit you don't want. It's the price of entry.

We actually have a set of guidelines to things, and when such a large vocal percent of the population doesn't want to pay for it, especially for something like PP, maybe we shouldn't pay for it.

When a program's existence decreases costs to taxpayers, while increasing the health and well-being of people in the society, then there's not much "subjective" about it.

That isn't an argument. We do not go and subsidize just because it decreases costs and benefits tax payers. That's just dumb. It ends being the majority foot the bill for the few who benefit and use it.

Ha! Okay, I'll bite. Prove it.

Ok, the constitution is pretty clear and concise about what the federal government can and can't do. Cite me the part that allows them to fund PP.

I think you need to educate yourself on the benefits of family planning, education, and prophylactics in general if you're really unsure where the connections lie. It's not a difficult journey.

"I'm going to use words kinda related to the topic and tell you to look them up so I don't have to respond."

Again, welcome to this thing we call "society". If you want it to thrive, you spread the costs of public benefit around, so that those who are more likely to need it can afford it when they do.

Buy me an iPod then. It benefits society.

Ooh, a red herring! Should I chase it?

Yes, considering it speaks volumes about PP, their intended goal, and the demographic breakdown of abortions.

Maybe for the other 90% of the shit they do?

So basically you're saying the federal aid only goes for abortion?

Those same people happily pay thousands of dollars to, and give millions in tax breaks to organizations that harbor and encourage pedophiles. Their feelings are irrelevant. See? I can do this, too!

ITT: Every person opposed to abortion is Catholic.

So... contraception is good, but getting it to those who most need it and are least able to afford it is bad? Gotcha.

No, it's pretty simple.

Contraception good. Being forced to pay for others or for others to pay for yours bad.

You really didn't listen to her testimony at all did you?

You mean her vastly bloated numbers? Her whole reason for enrolling was to bitch about the program not covering it?


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-18 01:42:10 Reply

At 4/18/12 12:34 AM, RacistBassist wrote: We actually have a set of guidelines to things, and when such a large vocal percent of the population doesn't want to pay for it, especially for something like PP, maybe we shouldn't pay for it.

I can point out a few examples of where the majority had it wrong. While the majority is very important, they are by no means infallible.

That isn't an argument. We do not go and subsidize just because it decreases costs and benefits tax payers. That's just dumb. It ends being the majority foot the bill for the few who benefit and use it.

Really? Again, this is a shallow and illogical argument. The majority doesn't want to fund a program for some women, so instead they foot the exponentially higher bill of Medicare for the unwanted kiddos and the extremely likely child welfare costs for the kid? Puh-lease. You might as well pass up getting oils changes saving yourself a whopping hundreds of dollars just to have to replace the entire engine at a cost of ten thousand.

Ok, the constitution is pretty clear and concise about what the federal government can and can't do. Cite me the part that allows them to fund PP.

How's about the tax and spend clause?

Buy me an iPod then. It benefits society.

No it doesn't. Your ability to listen to music has about 0% effect on society. The cost of caring for poor children, negelcted children, and delinquent children effects everyone. See the connection here?

So basically you're saying the federal aid only goes for abortion?

Actually, I believe it is the conservatives that make this claim.

No, it's pretty simple.
Contraception good. Being forced to pay for others or for others to pay for yours bad.

No you have it wrong. Being forced to pay for others is bad, but we're extremely willing to pay the massive amounts of money it takes to cover the kiddos during their first 18 years under Medicare, the high likelihood those kids will enter the Juvenile Justice system either as a delinquent or as a child welfare case, or both, is 100% A-ok.

Simplified: We will pay the expensive costs after you fuck up, but we sure as hell don't want to pay to avoid those expensive costs!

I say it comes down to this:

Which is worse?

A slut, or an extremely poor, abusive, and neglecting parent?

Memorize
Memorize
  • Member since: Jun. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Animator
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-18 01:42:59 Reply

At 4/17/12 11:37 PM, Ravariel wrote:
Yeah, welcome to living in a democratic society. You have to pay for shit you don't want. It's the price of entry.

Once again: How do you feel about the Government using money for what you don't want?

Funding the NRA.
Subsidizing Faith based groups.
Bailing out favored industries.
Starting wars without declaring them.

I'm sure your pathetic, little excuse of "welcome to living in a democratic society" wouldn't be tolerated by you then, would it?

When a program's existence decreases costs to taxpayers, while increasing the health and well-being of people in the society, then there's not much "subjective" about it.

Except that it never happens.

How much were they off by Medicare, again?

Ha! Okay, I'll bite. Prove it.

I don't have to.

You're the one claiming we need to do it.
You're one of the types of people who implemented it.

Prove to me where you get the authorization from.

I think you need to educate yourself on the benefits of family planning, education, and prophylactics in general if you're really unsure where the connections lie. It's not a difficult journey.

You didn't answer the question.

Why? Because you can't. lol, you're that pathetic.

Again, welcome to this thing we call "society". If you want it to thrive, you spread the costs of public benefit around, so that those who are more likely to need it can afford it when they do.

How's that working out with our Trillions of unfunded liabilities?

Ooh, a red herring! Should I chase it?

Well, you're already a fucking idiot. It would amuse me if you gave it a shot since you'd probly respond in a way that had nothing to do with the point I was making.

Maybe for the other 90% of the shit they do?

Once again: If it's such a small number, why do they need it?

Those same people happily pay thousands of dollars to, and give millions in tax breaks to organizations that harbor and encourage pedophiles. Their feelings are irrelevant. See? I can do this, too!

Question: How is letting people keep their own money the equivalent to giving someone else's money to them?

Once again: You're a fucking moron.

An entertaining one at least.

So... contraception is good, but getting it to those who most need it and are least able to afford it is bad? Gotcha.

How am I responsible for other people's actions?

What's fair about punishing me for it?

I'll try to explain how you're stupidity on this issue is actually anti-woman...

As a small example: When we passed the Citizens with Disabilities Act, it was meant to help those individuals. But what happened? More disabled people became unemployed because employers began seeing them as potential liabilities , resulting in less of them being hired.

What do you think mandated contraception coverage would do?

First off, because it's now "free", then just like how people abuse insurance by over-using it (and just simply using it) on routine doctors visits, they will abuse the "free" part and "purchase" more contraception than they would otherwise need.

Secondly, because it's now "free", people will start buying the more expensive contraceptives (increasing premiums even further!).

Third, because women are now being covered by this, employers will see them as even more of a liability and will either A) be less likely to hire women, or B) reduce their pay to their male counter-parts.

And don't give me this Bullshit that birth control and contraceptives "aren't affordable." If high school teenagers without jobs can obtain them, then you don't have an excuse.

You really didn't listen to her testimony at all did you?

I did.

But as usual, you're the same from 2 years ago: A totally mentally inept, worthless little bitch who couldn't even muster up enough willpower to move 1 brain cell.

digiman2024
digiman2024
  • Member since: Apr. 16, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-18 04:16:29 Reply

there is no war on women. it is just a ploy to get women to vote for obama, the dems cant win running on obama's record.

on the pp front: i dont like federal funding on anything it just makes shit more expensive. but on pp they should of lost funding years ago when they were breaking states laws not reporting teen preganacies and telling teens to lie on forms for abortions. if you dont remember the controversy it was like 5 yrs ago i think it was in 7 states someone went in with a hidden camera. but truly federal funding of just about every ngo (non-government organization) should be stopped.

Ravariel
Ravariel
  • Member since: Apr. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Musician
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-18 08:41:18 Reply

Well, this is getting a little off-topic, but I'll do one more just for the kicks.

At 4/18/12 01:42 AM, Memorize wrote: Once again: How do you feel about the Government using money for what you don't want?

Eh, I'm not always happy about it (earmarks, etc) but I understand that in a democracy I don't get to choose where each and every one of my Tax dollars go. I deal. And vote for those who will spend money on programs I like and not spend it on programs I don't. It's an ingenious system some dudes dreamed up a short while ago.

Funding the NRA.

Hypothetical.

Subsidizing Faith based groups.

Hypothetical.

Bailing out favored industries.

I live in Michigan. The Auto bailouts were a smashing success. The Financial ones less so, but necessary. The followup was extremely poor, however.

Starting wars without declaring them.

Don't care, really. Lybia wasn't a war. Iraq I've gotten over.

Ha! Okay, I'll bite. Prove it.
You're the one claiming we need to do it.
You're one of the types of people who implemented it.

Prove to me where you get the authorization from.

O hai thar!

Maybe for the other 90% of the shit they do?
Once again: If it's such a small number, why do they need it?

Small number for the Federal Government. 50% of PPs budget.

So... contraception is good, but getting it to those who most need it and are least able to afford it is bad? Gotcha.
How am I responsible for other people's actions?

"Society."

What's fair about punishing me for it?

We're actually saving you money. You can go ahead and spend more if you want.

First off, because it's now "free", then just like how people abuse insurance by over-using it (and just simply using it) on routine doctors visits, they will abuse the "free" part and "purchase" more contraception than they would otherwise need.

Umm... that's just retarded. Prescription contraception is just that: prescribed. By a doctor. There is no reason to "purchase" more than you need. Nor is there any benefit to doing so.

Secondly, because it's now "free", people will start buying the more expensive contraceptives (increasing premiums even further!).

Um, no. Contraception is not "pick one off the shelf and go home". You consult with your OBGYN or family doctor in order to determine which one is correct for you. Co-pays and deductibles still apply, also, so "free" is a misnomer.

Third, because women are now being covered by this, employers will see them as even more of a liability and will either A) be less likely to hire women, or B) reduce their pay to their male counter-parts.

Wow. That's a stretch. Any change in premiums would be negligible.

And don't give me this Bullshit that birth control and contraceptives "aren't affordable." If high school teenagers without jobs can obtain them, then you don't have an excuse.

High school teenagers without jobs have an interesting method of affording things. It's called "Parents." I'm surprised you haven't met one yet. They're fairly common.

At 4/18/12 12:34 AM, RacistBassist wrote: That isn't an argument. We do not go and subsidize just because it decreases costs and benefits tax payers. That's just dumb. It ends being the majority foot the bill for the few who benefit and use it.

Yeah. Exactly. Again, welcome to this thing we call "society" where you help pay for everyone's benefit, be it for roads they use and you don't, for police protection others need and you don't, or for insurance for medical procedures and other programs they may need and you may not. That's how this whole thing works.

Maybe for the other 90% of the shit they do?
So basically you're saying the federal aid only goes for abortion?

Pretty much the opposite, actually. Which is actually how the law already works.

ITT: Every person opposed to abortion is Catholic.

ITP, you miss the point.

So... contraception is good, but getting it to those who most need it and are least able to afford it is bad? Gotcha.
No, it's pretty simple.

Contraception good. Being forced to pay for others or for others to pay for yours bad.

By this logic, the ultimate outcome is no taxes whatsoever, and a completely anarchic society. Now I know Mez is one of our crazier An-Cappers. Are you joining the ranks of him, Sadistic and Smilez (with apologies to Smilez)?

You really didn't listen to her testimony at all did you?
You mean her vastly bloated numbers? Her whole reason for enrolling was to bitch about the program not covering it?

...apparently not.


Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-18 10:38:37 Reply

At 4/18/12 01:42 AM, Camarohusky wrote: I can point out a few examples of where the majority had it wrong. While the majority is very important, they are by no means infallible.

When it comes to what optional things to fund, it should fall on them.

Really? Again, this is a shallow and illogical argument. The majority doesn't want to fund a program for some women, so instead they foot the exponentially higher bill of Medicare for the unwanted kiddos and the extremely likely child welfare costs for the kid? Puh-lease. You might as well pass up getting oils changes saving yourself a whopping hundreds of dollars just to have to replace the entire engine at a cost of ten thousand.

I'm sorry, but can you show me the correlation between a lack of planned parenthood and higher Medicare costs? Can you also show me where PP ends up having unwanted kids? Abortions can't be used with public money, so you can't use direct government funding as your reasoning, and that still does not explain why the public should be forced to fund PP. Replacing engines cost ten thousand?

How's about the tax and spend clause?

The ability to tax?

No it doesn't. Your ability to listen to music has about 0% effect on society. The cost of caring for poor children, negelcted children, and delinquent children effects everyone. See the connection here?

Music has a profound affect on a persons happiness and it stimulates the brain, and it also makes some people more productive workers. Therefore, society would benefit. So buy me an iPod.

Actually, I believe it is the conservatives that make this claim.

No they don't. They are of the "We don't want to support places that do abortions."

No you have it wrong. Being forced to pay for others is bad, but we're extremely willing to pay the massive amounts of money it takes to cover the kiddos during their first 18 years under Medicare, the high likelihood those kids will enter the Juvenile Justice system either as a delinquent or as a child welfare case, or both, is 100% A-ok.

I don't think you know that much about the US system or any of our programs. Medicare does not cover kids. Well, it covers disabled kids, but not the average kid. Also, show me the link between PP and kids that go to juvie, or child welfare.

Simplified: We will pay the expensive costs after you fuck up, but we sure as hell don't want to pay to avoid those expensive costs!

Send me a box of condoms, a years supply of birth control pills, and a bunch of family planning books. It will benefit society because it will keep me from having an unwanted kid.

I say it comes down to this:

Which is worse?

A slut, or an extremely poor, abusive, and neglecting parent?

Odd, I can play extremes also:

What is worse? Supporting a clinic that performs abortions so they can divert funds so that people can use abortion as a contraceptive, or supporting people to be self-reliant and to pay for their own shit.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-18 13:55:22 Reply

At 4/18/12 10:38 AM, RacistBassist wrote: I'm sorry, but can you show me the correlation between a lack of planned parenthood and higher Medicare costs? Can you also show me where PP ends up having unwanted kids? Abortions can't be used with public money, so you can't use direct government funding as your reasoning, and that still does not explain why the public should be forced to fund PP. Replacing engines cost ten thousand?

First, it's Medicaid, not Medicare. Second, those who would need assistance paying for contraception and/or abortions are extremely likely to have a low enough income to warrant Medicaid. Medicaid is given to every kid if the family has a low enough income (I think the minimum ceiling is 100% if the Federal Poverty Level). Medicais is an almost guaranteed result of unwanted pregnancies that could have been avoided through contraception or abortion.

As for the child welfare/delinquency angle, it's less of a guranatee, but the costs are astronomically higher than Medicaid per child. Having spent the last year working in that area I can pretty damn well say that a bit of extra contraception, or some trips to the abortion clinic, could really have lowered the numbers of children in the system. And, even in my relatively wealthy county, I only ever had 1 (out of several hundred parents) not qualify for a court appointed attorney. To sum it up, the overwhelming majority of children in the system come from poor families, and are by and large unplanned.

The ability to tax?

Tax and spend. "...to ... provide for the common welfare." Sounds like that applies to public health.

Music has a profound affect on a persons happiness and it stimulates the brain, and it also makes some people more productive workers. Therefore, society would benefit. So buy me an iPod.

Yeah, and we subsidized the building of radio towers and the creation of a radio network. Your need to have that encased in a portable system and a clad in the TMs of the AppleCult is extra.

Your ipod would be more akin to women wanting abortiongs in a gold plated clinic with free TV and free food and a nice massage. All they ask for now is the basic tools necessary to fulfill a specific and very important need.

No they don't. They are of the "We don't want to support places that do abortions."

Bot Ravariel and I have strongly claimed that abortion only makes up a small amount of what Planned Parenthood does. They do other womens' health exams. They do mammograms, and paps and a lot of other things needed to keep women healthy and keep them from getting expensive diseases.

I don't think you know that much about the US system or any of our programs. Medicare does not cover kids. Well, it covers disabled kids, but not the average kid. Also, show me the link between PP and kids that go to juvie, or child welfare.

When did I ever say Medicare (and if I did it was a typo). I know what Medicare covers: The elderly, those with disabilities, and those with ALS or ESRD. Medicaid is what I meant to say and that covers every kid who lives in a family below a certian income level.

Freakonomics makes a good argument for how aboriton effected the streets of NYC. Also, with the vast supermajority of child welfare families being poor, and most of the children being unplanned, it's actually pretty easy to see how afforable contracpetives and abortion could easily play into either reducing the current levels, or making the current levels as low as they are.

Send me a box of condoms, a years supply of birth control pills, and a bunch of family planning books. It will benefit society because it will keep me from having an unwanted kid.

If we got everyone to pitch in, we'd all see the benefits as that 1 in 100 kid who would go into child welfare costing the system hundreds of thousands of dollars to care for would not drain. So yeah, in the end if everyone was on board, I'd pitch in cause 100-1000 bucks now to save the possibility of paying well over 100,000 costs just in child welfare in the longs run is a pretty damn good bet. That doesn't even take Medicaid into account.

What is worse? Supporting a clinic that performs abortions so they can divert funds so that people can use abortion as a contraceptive, or supporting people to be self-reliant and to pay for their own shit.

To quote a beuatiful line from Craig on South Park: If I had wheels I'd be a wagon.

If only we could snap our fingers and stop pre-marital sex. But guess what? We can't. Any attempt to do so is just naive, and insulting. So how's about we spend extreme amounts of money covering Medicaid costs for poor children and child welfare costs for poor and unwanted children, why don't we pay the slight cost now to subsidize prevention?

But, let's have it your way. Let's condition medical help on the ability of humans to overcome evolution, instinct, and hormones. Let's do this all the while paying out big bucks to cover the costs of when humans give in to their humanity.

djack
djack
  • Member since: Aug. 10, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Movie Buff
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-18 14:22:26 Reply

At 4/18/12 01:55 PM, Camarohusky wrote: First, it's Medicaid, not Medicare. Second, those who would need assistance paying for contraception and/or abortions are extremely likely to have a low enough income to warrant Medicaid. Medicaid is given to every kid if the family has a low enough income (I think the minimum ceiling is 100% if the Federal Poverty Level). Medicais is an almost guaranteed result of unwanted pregnancies that could have been avoided through contraception or abortion.

As for the child welfare/delinquency angle, it's less of a guranatee, but the costs are astronomically higher than Medicaid per child. Having spent the last year working in that area I can pretty damn well say that a bit of extra contraception, or some trips to the abortion clinic, could really have lowered the numbers of children in the system. And, even in my relatively wealthy county, I only ever had 1 (out of several hundred parents) not qualify for a court appointed attorney. To sum it up, the overwhelming majority of children in the system come from poor families, and are by and large unplanned.

How many of those poor families could have bought condoms instead of that 6 pack of beer and had access to a contraceptive that works more than 99% of the time? Even if you can't afford the more expensive forms of contraceptives, condoms are cheap and work more often than not. Perhaps instead of wasting that money by letting people use abortion as a form of birth control the government should use it for something that slows the birth rate without killing people like a better education system.

Yeah, and we subsidized the building of radio towers and the creation of a radio network. Your need to have that encased in a portable system and a clad in the TMs of the AppleCult is extra.

Your ipod would be more akin to women wanting abortiongs in a gold plated clinic with free TV and free food and a nice massage. All they ask for now is the basic tools necessary to fulfill a specific and very important need.

Name one portable MP3 player without searching through the online stock of a store and then tell me why you think someone would say ipod when they're talking about portable music players. Hell, since your post seems to support providing free contraceptives explain to me why Racist wanting an ipod is equivalent to women wanting gold plated abortion clinics while women wanting to be supplied with the pill is perfectly acceptable when condoms are so much cheaper.

If we got everyone to pitch in, we'd all see the benefits as that 1 in 100 kid who would go into child welfare costing the system hundreds of thousands of dollars to care for would not drain. So yeah, in the end if everyone was on board, I'd pitch in cause 100-1000 bucks now to save the possibility of paying well over 100,000 costs just in child welfare in the longs run is a pretty damn good bet. That doesn't even take Medicaid into account.

If everyone did what they could this conversation wouldn't be happening because those lower income families would think before they acted and use the contraception they can afford. If everyone got on board there'd be no octomoms who give birth to 8 kids when they already have 4 they can't afford or druggies who spend too much time getting high to keep a job.

Ravariel
Ravariel
  • Member since: Apr. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Musician
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-18 15:01:54 Reply

At 4/18/12 02:22 PM, djack wrote: How many of those poor families could have bought condoms instead of that 6 pack of beer and had access to a contraceptive that works more than 99% of the time?

A) when it costs the taxpayers approximately $1 per year to fund all of PP, this argument is pretty weak. Not to mention insulting.

Perhaps instead of wasting that money by letting people use abortion as a form of birth control...

No one does that. It's like rainbow parties and Santa Clause: a myth cooked up by the right to demonize and shame women away from what must be a terrible decision.

the government should use it for something that slows the birth rate without killing people like a better education system.

You mean like PP? Considering all the kerfluffle that gets raised every time people try to get comprehensive sex education onto the public school curriculum, this is a silly, and disingenuous tack, as you should know that such things will not fly in our increasingly puritan right-wing society.

Name one portable MP3 player...

Aaaand I think we're officially off-track. Can we get back to the topics at hand, please?

If everyone did what they could this conversation wouldn't be happening because those lower income families would think before they acted and use the contraception they can afford. If everyone got on board there'd be no octomoms who give birth to 8 kids when they already have 4 they can't afford or druggies who spend too much time getting high to keep a job.

Exactly. One is possible, the other not. So the decision seems an easy one to me.


Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

Ravariel
Ravariel
  • Member since: Apr. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Musician
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-18 15:06:33 Reply

At 4/18/12 03:01 PM, Ravariel wrote:
At 4/18/12 02:22 PM, djack wrote: How many of those poor families could have bought condoms instead of that 6 pack of beer and had access to a contraceptive that works more than 99% of the time?
A) when it costs the taxpayers approximately $1 per year to fund all of PP, this argument is pretty weak. Not to mention insulting.

D'oh, there was supposed to be more here:

B) Buying condoms does not guarantee against catching many STDs (crabs, herpes)
C) Insurance coverage of contraception is CHEAPER than ANY realistic alternative.
and D) that assumes there is enough education in middle- and low-income areas for people to be aware of the benefits, dangers, and options for contraception available to them. Often it is through medical checkups at PP clinics that women (and men) are educated on their contraception choices. Eliminating funding will eliminate this, as well as that icky 3% that makes everyone so squeamish.


Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

djack
djack
  • Member since: Aug. 10, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Movie Buff
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-18 15:18:54 Reply

At 4/18/12 03:01 PM, Ravariel wrote:
At 4/18/12 02:22 PM, djack wrote: How many of those poor families could have bought condoms instead of that 6 pack of beer and had access to a contraceptive that works more than 99% of the time?
A) when it costs the taxpayers approximately $1 per year to fund all of PP, this argument is pretty weak. Not to mention insulting.

When the argument is about cost it's cheaper for taxpayers to have people purchase their own contraceptives and avoid abortion altogether.

Perhaps instead of wasting that money by letting people use abortion as a form of birth control...
No one does that. It's like rainbow parties and Santa Clause: a myth cooked up by the right to demonize and shame women away from what must be a terrible decision.

You believe that no one uses abortion as a form of birth control? There are more than 1.2 million abortions per year right now and when Roe v. Wade was passed that number was even higher, not all of those are the result of women needing an abortion to save their own life or aborting a child that would have been born with a genetic defect that would have caused them so much pain in life that it's more humane to get an abortion.

the government should use it for something that slows the birth rate without killing people like a better education system.
You mean like PP? Considering all the kerfluffle that gets raised every time people try to get comprehensive sex education onto the public school curriculum, this is a silly, and disingenuous tack, as you should know that such things will not fly in our increasingly puritan right-wing society.

No, I mean something proactive rather than reactive. There might be trouble getting a proper sex education system but it's better than waiting until after someone gets pregnant to point out that pregnancy is one of the dangers of sex without contraception.

Exactly. One is possible, the other not. So the decision seems an easy one to me.

There are other options than providing free contraception and paying pp with government funds. The decision seems easy because you're ignoring the alternatives.

djack
djack
  • Member since: Aug. 10, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Movie Buff
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-18 15:28:36 Reply

At 4/18/12 03:06 PM, Ravariel wrote:
At 4/18/12 03:01 PM, Ravariel wrote:
At 4/18/12 02:22 PM, djack wrote: How many of those poor families could have bought condoms instead of that 6 pack of beer and had access to a contraceptive that works more than 99% of the time?
A) when it costs the taxpayers approximately $1 per year to fund all of PP, this argument is pretty weak. Not to mention insulting.
B) Buying condoms does not guarantee against catching many STDs (crabs, herpes)

Condoms are more likely to prevent catching STDs than contraceptive pills because the pill doesn't stop STDs from being passed on.

C) Insurance coverage of contraception is CHEAPER than ANY realistic alternative.

Cheaper than people buying their own? Cheaper than using a pre-existing education system to warn people against the dangers of unprotected sex so that they know enough to use contraception in the first place? Cheaper than not giving money to pay for other people's stupid decisions?

and D) that assumes there is enough education in middle- and low-income areas for people to be aware of the benefits, dangers, and options for contraception available to them. Often it is through medical checkups at PP clinics that women (and men) are educated on their contraception choices. Eliminating funding will eliminate this, as well as that icky 3% that makes everyone so squeamish.

Public education is FREE even to middle and low income families. Public education already includes a sex ed class. Even the dumbest, laziest kid has access to this information at some point in their life and everyone can find money for contraception of some form or another.

Ravariel
Ravariel
  • Member since: Apr. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Musician
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-18 17:02:29 Reply

At 4/18/12 03:18 PM, djack wrote: When the argument is about cost it's cheaper for taxpayers to have people purchase their own contraceptives and avoid abortion altogether.

No, it's not.

You believe that no one uses abortion as a form of birth control?

An argument from incredulity is no argument at all. No one would rather abort than prevent a pregnancy. No. One. However, as the saying goes (paraphrased): Doo-doo occurs.

No, I mean something proactive rather than reactive. There might be trouble getting a proper sex education system but it's better than waiting until after someone gets pregnant to point out that pregnancy is one of the dangers of sex without contraception.

Hey, how about we have BOTH, so that people to whom the message doesn't get in time, or who make mistakes that will harm them, their child, and society have options. What a great idea that would be!

There are other options than providing free contraception and paying pp with government funds. The decision seems easy because you're ignoring the alternatives.

What reasonable alternatives exist? Burdening an already creaking Medicaid system with either more unfit/poor mothers and their children? Hoping against hope that charity will take care of it all, all historical evidence aside? "Just put them up for adoption" when our foster/adoption system is broken, too? Give me an alternative that we can discuss realistically and we'll do it.

Condoms are more likely to prevent catching STDs than contraceptive pills because the pill doesn't stop STDs from being passed on.

True, but my point was that there is more to contraception and the education that PP provides than just stopping fertilization.

C) Insurance coverage of contraception is CHEAPER than ANY realistic alternative.
Cheaper than people buying their own?

Yes.

Cheaper than using a pre-existing education system to warn people against the dangers of unprotected sex so that they know enough to use contraception in the first place?

Yes.

Cheaper than not giving money to pay for other people's stupid decisions?

Yes.

Public education is FREE even to middle and low income families. Public education already includes a sex ed class. Even the dumbest, laziest kid has access to this information at some point in their life and everyone can find money for contraception of some form or another.

But there IS NO GOOD curriculum anywhere in our public schools that deals with sex in a rational way. You're proposing we replace a system that works with one that might, if we did it, if we had the political will, and if we could convince retards that someone could speak to kids about the boogiest of all boogie men. You know what? Get me a public education system that is as good at sex education as PP, and a foster/adoption system that isn't terrible, and a serious effort in our health system for preventative care... get me those three things and I'll agree that we can save the $450 million we spend on PP per year.

Until then, all these hypothetical "better options" are nothing more than mental calisthenics.


Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

djack
djack
  • Member since: Aug. 10, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Movie Buff
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-18 19:12:07 Reply

At 4/18/12 05:02 PM, Ravariel wrote: No, it's not.

In what way is an individual buying a box of condoms more expensive than taxpayers being charged for abortions, or shifting the amount of money spent by the 99% of women who use the pill already to the rest of us by making it mandatory for insurance companies to pay for it?

An argument from incredulity is no argument at all. No one would rather abort than prevent a pregnancy. No. One. However, as the saying goes (paraphrased): Doo-doo occurs.

You grossly underestimate just how selfish people can be. There are people out there who would rather get a free abortion through planned parenthood than pay for regular contraception. There's also a lot of people who legitimately believe that a fetus is not alive and have no qualms about having abortions. Not every pregnancy is because someone's birth control failed, there are people who don't know how to use it or simply choose not to.

Hey, how about we have BOTH, so that people to whom the message doesn't get in time, or who make mistakes that will harm them, their child, and society have options. What a great idea that would be!

Hey, how about we teach people that actions have consequences so that taxpayers don't have to bear the burden of other peoples mistakes. What a great society that would be!

What reasonable alternatives exist? Burdening an already creaking Medicaid system with either more unfit/poor mothers and their children? Hoping against hope that charity will take care of it all, all historical evidence aside? "Just put them up for adoption" when our foster/adoption system is broken, too? Give me an alternative that we can discuss realistically and we'll do it.

Education, proactive attempts to stop pregnancies, or reducing the benefits to people who fuck up their own life so that they're forced to be more responsible. No one is going to improve themselves when the government is going to step in and pay for what they did. The octomom I mentioned had 4 children she already couldn't afford (and was already getting money from the government to raise) and still shoved so many fertility drugs down her throat that she gave birth to octuplets and the government is paying for it. Even if you see no other way than providing free contraception it's still a lot cheaper to hand out free condoms than prescription medication.

True, but my point was that there is more to contraception and the education that PP provides than just stopping fertilization.

Then why are you against moving that education to public schools to stop pregnancies before they happened rather than murdering the unborn? Don't just bitch about how modern sex ed is crap, we're talking about something that needs change not something that's perfect already.

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-18 20:29:43 Reply

At 4/18/12 01:55 PM, Camarohusky wrote: First, it's Medicaid, not Medicare. Second, those who would need assistance paying for contraception and/or abortions are extremely likely to have a low enough income to warrant Medicaid. Medicaid is given to every kid if the family has a low enough income (I think the minimum ceiling is 100% if the Federal Poverty Level). Medicais is an almost guaranteed result of unwanted pregnancies that could have been avoided through contraception or abortion.

Sorry for thinking you were talking about Medicare and not Medicaid when you explicitly called it Medicare. Basically what it all comes down to is us being forced to pay for other people being responsible. I say let them pay for their mistakes, not us.

As for the child welfare/delinquency angle, it's less of a guranatee, but the costs are astronomically higher than Medicaid per child. Having spent the last year working in that area I can pretty damn well say that a bit of extra contraception, or some trips to the abortion clinic, could really have lowered the numbers of children in the system. And, even in my relatively wealthy county, I only ever had 1 (out of several hundred parents) not qualify for a court appointed attorney. To sum it up, the overwhelming majority of children in the system come from poor families, and are by and large unplanned.

So basically because other people fuck up and do bad shit everyone else should have to pay for it.

Tax and spend. "...to ... provide for the common welfare." Sounds like that applies to public health.

And so does you buying me an iPod. I have no problem at all with medicaid and shit. I do, however, have a problem funding a private entity like PP that performs abortions.

Yeah, and we subsidized the building of radio towers and the creation of a radio network. Your need to have that encased in a portable system and a clad in the TMs of the AppleCult is extra.

I still need a way to listen. I demand you pay for me. To not is to wage a war on women.

Your ipod would be more akin to women wanting abortiongs in a gold plated clinic with free TV and free food and a nice massage. All they ask for now is the basic tools necessary to fulfill a specific and very important need.

More like to women wanting to get abortions at a facility that can charge less because they get so much federal aid.

Bot Ravariel and I have strongly claimed that abortion only makes up a small amount of what Planned Parenthood does. They do other womens' health exams. They do mammograms, and paps and a lot of other things needed to keep women healthy and keep them from getting expensive diseases.

No, they outsource mammograms. If you are giving them money, that money indirectly goes to every single thing they do since it frees up funds from other areas. If I get $450 a week, and I have a $50 a week heroin habit, getting $50 extra from whatever source still indirectly feeds said habit, just not directly.

When did I ever say Medicare (and if I did it was a typo). I know what Medicare covers: The elderly, those with disabilities, and those with ALS or ESRD. Medicaid is what I meant to say and that covers every kid who lives in a family below a certian income level.

Every single time you referred to it you said Medicare.

Freakonomics makes a good argument for how aboriton effected the streets of NYC. Also, with the vast supermajority of child welfare families being poor, and most of the children being unplanned, it's actually pretty easy to see how afforable contracpetives and abortion could easily play into either reducing the current levels, or making the current levels as low as they are.

Condoms are what, 50c each if you don't buy bulk packs? The pill is what, 7 a month even if uninsured?

Yeah, it's affordable. And without PP being a part of the equation. Not our fault people don't want to wrap up or practice unsafe sex.

If we got everyone to pitch in, we'd all see the benefits as that 1 in 100 kid who would go into child welfare costing the system hundreds of thousands of dollars to care for would not drain. So yeah, in the end if everyone was on board, I'd pitch in cause 100-1000 bucks now to save the possibility of paying well over 100,000 costs just in child welfare in the longs run is a pretty damn good bet. That doesn't even take Medicaid into account.

Then pitch in for me alone. Put your money where your mouth is. Send me a 1 time payment of a couple of condoms are a month or two for the pill to prove you actually mean what you say. Then again, you're probably also the type who advocates for lower taxes, except the upper echelons.

To quote a beuatiful line from Craig on South Park: If I had wheels I'd be a wagon.

Not everything with wheels is a wagon.

If only we could snap our fingers and stop pre-marital sex. But guess what? We can't. Any attempt to do so is just naive, and insulting. So how's about we spend extreme amounts of money covering Medicaid costs for poor children and child welfare costs for poor and unwanted children, why don't we pay the slight cost now to subsidize prevention?

Here's an idea:

Not cover the burden for dumbasses because doing that only alleviates their responsibilities and encourages the behavior.

But, let's have it your way. Let's condition medical help on the ability of humans to overcome evolution, instinct, and hormones. Let's do this all the while paying out big bucks to cover the costs of when humans give in to their humanity.

It's not that hard to get a condom.

Wait, human nature also says that we should eliminate our mating rivals, so that'd be justified right?


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
BUTANE
BUTANE
  • Member since: May. 9, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 22
Blank Slate
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-18 21:42:54 Reply

As far at the economy being sub-par goes, I think that by the time the general rolls around in November the unemployment rate will finally be under 8%. Even if it's still 7.99%, when reading it on paper, it will look wayyy nicer and people wont be as concerned (I realize there are other factors with economy as well).

Any-who, the "war on women" rhetoric will not last long enough to make it to November (unfortunately). Talking points only last for so long before people get bored and forget that they were even discussed. If I'm wrong, and I hope I am, it will definitely help out Obama and the dems that are running for congress. But the most important thing to take away from this "war on women" rhetoric is that the Democrats are finally growing a backbone. Republicans have always used scare tactics and low blows to sway the uninformed and gullible to their side: ObamaCare death panels, socialism, communism, war on religion, war on Christmas, taxing "job creators", etc. The democrats have always just sat back and taken it with no shove of their own. I hope they keep it up. The "war on women" may not be a hot topic issue in November, but there are a million other things to get people riled up about and push them over to the left (show them that the left might not be perfect, but its better than the insanity of the right).


BBS Signature
Memorize
Memorize
  • Member since: Jun. 12, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Animator
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-19 00:46:59 Reply

At 4/18/12 08:41 AM, Ravariel wrote:
Eh, I'm not always happy about it (earmarks, etc) but I understand that in a democracy I don't get to choose where each and every one of my Tax dollars go. I deal.

And you're a pathetic waste of trash for "dealing."

Hypothetical.

Still true.

Hypothetical.

Still true.

I live in Michigan. The Auto bailouts were a smashing success.

Further proving you're own mental retardation.

Don't care, really. Lybia wasn't a war. Iraq I've gotten over.

Because using military planes to drop bombs with the stated goal of removing a regime only counts as a war only if you call it one.

I bet you'd also side with Harry Truman who said that Korea wasn't a war, only a Police action... with military force...

O hai thar!

You cited Wikipedia without explaining how anything listed proves your point.

Once again: You're fucking retarded.

Small number for the Federal Government. 50% of PPs budget.

Here I thought you were against Business colluding with Government.

But even still, if you truly wanted this head ache to go away, then why not use those Federal dollars for Organizations that don't perform abortions?

You still get all the funding you want all while being able to avoid the controversy.

But I bet you wouldn't go for that, because you're still a predictable, stupid fuck.

"Society."

You're "society" sounds a lot like organized religion.

We're actually saving you money. You can go ahead and spend more if you want.

1... you're not even giving me the option.

2... I'll ask again: How are those Trillions in unfunded liabilities working for you?

First off, because it's now "free", then just like how people abuse insurance by over-using it (and just simply using it) on routine doctors visits, they will abuse the "free" part and "purchase" more contraception than they would otherwise need.
Umm... that's just retarded. Prescription contraception is just that: prescribed. By a doctor. There is no reason to "purchase" more than you need. Nor is there any benefit to doing so.

There's also no reason for most people to make a doctor visit every couple months while using their insurance for pay for it when it's already cheap... but guess what?

People still fucking do it.

Um, no.

Uh... yes, you damned idiot.

Contraception is not "pick one off the shelf and go home".

Certainly explains how people are able to already do that.

You're also not taking into consideration that businesses, like drug companies, will be able to jack up prices knowing that they'll be paid for.

You consult with your OBGYN or family doctor in order to determine which one is correct for you. Co-pays and deductibles still apply, also, so "free" is a misnomer.

I call Bullshit

Wow. That's a stretch. Any change in premiums would be negligible.

The fact that you admitted to it, just proves my point.

High school teenagers without jobs have an interesting method of affording things. It's called "Parents." I'm surprised you haven't met one yet. They're fairly common.

As stated in the article, something like Oral Contraceptives... are $9.

NINE FUCKING DOLLARS.

The Morning after pill is only $10 - $70.

BULLSHIT their parents are paying for their teenagers contraception.

And as the article points out (since you never bothered to define 'insurance' to us):

"This gets us to a broader question: how the definition of insurance has lost any meaning in the context of American health care. Insurance, traditionally defined, is meant to protect us from the risk of unexpectedly incurring catastrophic costs. Car insurance, for example, protects us against collisions, but doesn't cover our purchase of wiper fluid or gasoline. Homeowner's insurance doesn't cover the cost of air conditioning. And yet, now, we have a federal law that forces health insurance to cover something that is even cheaper than gasoline or air conditioning."

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-19 01:01:08 Reply

At 4/18/12 08:29 PM, RacistBassist wrote: Sorry for thinking you were talking about Medicare and not Medicaid when you explicitly called it Medicare.

Apologies. I read my previous post after I wrote this one and realized i had said Medicare instead of Medicaid.

Basically what it all comes down to is us being forced to pay for other people being responsible. I say let them pay for their mistakes, not us.

The thing is, we already pay for their mistakes. We pay a great deal for their mistakes. Why should we pay out our hind quarters for their mistakes when we can toss a penny here and then to prevent them? As a pure economic matter subsidizing abortion and contracpetion is a no brainer. The economic argument against it just falt out fails.

So basically because other people fuck up and do bad shit everyone else should have to pay for it.

We already do!!!! Either way, who would we be punishing by not paying for these services? Not those who fucked up. Nope. We'd be punishing their innocent children.

And so does you buying me an iPod. I have no problem at all with medicaid and shit. I do, however, have a problem funding a private entity like PP that performs abortions.

I have a hard time believing that you're truly this selfish and have this little ability to understand society as a whole. Your luxury is NOT a benefit to society, whereas basic health services are, especially when these basic services can prevent the need for expensive services down the line. How the hell does your iPod example come anywhere close to this? Really? Come on.

I still need a way to listen. I demand you pay for me. To not is to wage a war on women.

Oh, you got me! Seriously. Mammograms, paps, hygiene, contraception, and the occasional abortion are equivalent to iPods. I get it. Bitches don't deserve these things. Damn, every second they aren't making me my fucking pie in the kitchen whilst pregant, they're just sucking up air that us men could be using to listen to shitty music on some fucking fad of a system, right?

Who cares about health when it's only the equivalent of a piece of technology that most people live without, and even fewer use on a monthly basis?

Your iPod example is beautiful. You know why? It epitomizes the war on women. Women's health needs are as important as your minor luxury item.

More like to women wanting to get abortions at a facility that can charge less because they get so much federal aid.

Because they cannot afford that medical procedure somewhere else? Because they, and society, cannot afford to fork over the coin to raise the child properly?

No, they outsource mammograms. If you are giving them money, that money indirectly goes to every single thing they do since it frees up funds from other areas. If I get $450 a week, and I have a $50 a week heroin habit, getting $50 extra from whatever source still indirectly feeds said habit, just not directly.

So money is fungible, let's cut off all of the good stuff they do just becuase we have a qualm with the one bad thing we don't like. A few more cases of cancer, and some infections, and some STDs are a small price to pay for ensuring that women have a harder time getting contraceptives and abortions, right?

Yeah, it's affordable. And without PP being a part of the equation. Not our fault people don't want to wrap up or practice unsafe sex.

So we'll punish them by forcing their kid to be born to an unfit and unwilling parent. Then we'll punish those sluts by forcing all of us tax payers to fork out the coin to pay for the Medicaid and the child welfare costs.

You have a sound system right there. massive consequences for the promiscuous and no ripple effects upon innocent people... None at all.

Then pitch in for me alone. Put your money where your mouth is. Send me a 1 time payment of a couple of condoms are a month or two for the pill to prove you actually mean what you say. Then again, you're probably also the type who advocates for lower taxes, except the upper echelons.

No. Paying for just you isn't a large enough sample to break even. Playing the odds requires a large number of people.

Also, I advocate higher taxes for all. Still with the brackets, but we all fail to pay our share.

Here's an idea:

Not cover the burden for dumbasses because doing that only alleviates their responsibilities and encourages the behavior.

If you're trying to say let's drop the kiddos from Medicaid and get rid of child welfare, just say it. Otherwise you keep tiptoeing around the expensive elephants in the room.

It's not that hard to get a condom.
Wait, human nature also says that we should eliminate our mating rivals, so that'd be justified right?

Contraception is both as grave and as immediate as murder. You heard here first: Sex IS murder! How many times will you make these bad analogies and think you have won? Please, please please please, put at least ONE ounce of thought into these next response. It's quite annoying getting responses back that claim to be related but miss out on key points.

Angry-Hatter
Angry-Hatter
  • Member since: Mar. 17, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Artist
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-19 01:06:26 Reply

At 4/18/12 12:34 AM, RacistBassist wrote:
At 4/17/12 11:37 PM, Ravariel wrote: Yeah, welcome to living in a democratic society. You have to pay for shit you don't want. It's the price of entry.
We actually have a set of guidelines to things, and when such a large vocal percent of the population doesn't want to pay for it, especially for something like PP, maybe we shouldn't pay for it.

Woah, hold on there. I can't believe this point was allowed to go unchallanged.

There have been a number of recent opinion polls conducted on Planned Parenthood and the funding they receive, and in each of them, between 60-69% of people in those polls opposed the idea of cutting federal funding to Planned Parenthood.

So you mean to tell me that instead of going with what the vast majority of people think, we should listen to what 40% or less of what the American public thinks and put a stop to this overwhelmingly popular policy?


Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

digiman2024
digiman2024
  • Member since: Apr. 16, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to The Gender Gap 2012-04-19 02:45:13 Reply

At 4/17/12 11:37 PM, Ravariel wrote:
We actually have a set of guidelines to things, and when such a large vocal percent of the population doesn't want to pay for it, especially for something like PP, maybe we shouldn't pay for it.
Woah, hold on there. I can't believe this point was allowed to go unchallanged.

There have been a number of recent opinion polls conducted on Planned Parenthood and the funding they receive, and in each of them, between 60-69% of people in those polls opposed the idea of cutting federal funding to Planned Parenthood.

So you mean to tell me that instead of going with what the vast majority of people think, we should listen to what 40% or less of what the American public thinks and put a stop to this overwhelmingly popular policy?

i for one dont take polls as facts. polls are easily munipulated to pretty much give you want ever numbers u want.

ex: i can get a 90 -10 poll in favor of free housing paid for by the government. just by calling or polling in an area that is low income.

so dont bring in polls and stating them as facts