I think what Deacon is saying is that they can be discriminatory against one organization through the budget.
right and i'm not so sure that they can be in these circumstances
On what theory?
equal protection? Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena was federal spending. but that was a racial classification so obviously easier
congress also can't make unconstitutional conditions, like only funding libraries that ban certain books, and a right to an abortion is currently a constitutional right
i dunno, i'm just spit ballin here
Ubik on
0
Options
HunterChemist with a heart of AuRegistered Userregular
What if I specifically want my taxes going to abortions instead of breaks for oil companies or to the military?
Keep voting dem.
DeaconBlues on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Options
HunterChemist with a heart of AuRegistered Userregular
edited April 2011
So since funding for Planned Parenthood should be stopped, to prevent abortions, is there a budget boost for programs to assist new parents and young children? Stuff like WIC or CHIP?
Seems the only logical step if you want to remove all of Planned Parenthood.
1221: The BBC's Rajini Vaidyanathan is outside the US State Department where federal employees are protesting the shut down: Crowds have gathered, holding placards and listening to The Beatles. "Shame we didn't get more people here," says one man commenting on the crowd of under 100.
While I personally agree that we need to do more, I also don't think that one position must imply the other.
You don't think cutting funding for planned parenthood will increase the number of children born that would require assistance for food and medical care?
Eight percent of college men have either attempted or successfully raped. Thirty percent say they would rape if they could get away with it. When the wording was changed to “force a woman to have sex,” the number jumped to 58%. Worse still, 83.5% argue that “some women look like they are just asking to be raped.”
The fuck
What I want to know is - how honest can these results be? I mean if you give someone a fill-out form and ask them 'have you raped someone before', how many rapists would answer that honestly, even when given the opportunity to be anonymous?
I'd really like to know more about the methodology of these studies.
It sounds like pure propaganda to me.
Maybe the study was done on prison imates.
actually wait
there is no margo paine who wrote Body Wars, although this factoid with the misspelled name seems to have been reblogged hundreds of times
there is a margo maine though, but aside from people attributing this fact to her, I can't find any excerpts that go into detail
The quote is an accurate quote from that book; the author's name is the only part that the bloggers got wrong. That specific section of the book cites I Never Called It Rape: The Ms. Report on Recognizing, Fighting, and Surviving Date and Acquaintance Rape for the statistics.
You don't think cutting funding for planned parenthood will increase the number of children born that would require assistance for food and medical care?
Seems reasonable.
DeaconBlues on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
While I personally agree that we need to do more, I also don't think that one position must imply the other.
While I think it is total crap that eliminating health services for hundreds of thousands of women is an acceptable casualty to eliminatining of abortions that wil almost certainly happen either way, and that it's completely unconscionable to do that without making provision for those losses...
You articulated a personal opinion without playing gotcha. Sniff. So proud.
Eight percent of college men have either attempted or successfully raped. Thirty percent say they would rape if they could get away with it. When the wording was changed to “force a woman to have sex,” the number jumped to 58%. Worse still, 83.5% argue that “some women look like they are just asking to be raped.”
The fuck
What I want to know is - how honest can these results be? I mean if you give someone a fill-out form and ask them 'have you raped someone before', how many rapists would answer that honestly, even when given the opportunity to be anonymous?
I'd really like to know more about the methodology of these studies.
It sounds like pure propaganda to me.
Maybe the study was done on prison imates.
actually wait
there is no margo paine who wrote Body Wars, although this factoid with the misspelled name seems to have been reblogged hundreds of times
there is a margo maine though, but aside from people attributing this fact to her, I can't find any excerpts that go into detail
The quote is an accurate quote from that book; the author's name is the only part that the bloggers got wrong. That specific section of the book cites I Never Called It Rape: The Ms. Report on Recognizing, Fighting, and Surviving Date and Acquaintance Rape for the statistics.
Oh, well since they're only killing babies 3% of the time...
*takes out checkbook*
DeaconBlues on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Options
Tommy2Handswhat is this where am iRegistered Userregular
edited April 2011
hey deacon
go fuck yourself
Tommy2Hands on
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
edited April 2011
Do I have to point out how the Hyde amendment actually means that none of the federal money for PP actually goes to abortion funding first or can I go straight into how stupid the "fungibility of currency" argument is?
this is really the position of the anti-abortion side of the argument.
I mean, in their minds, it's an institution where people, with as much right to life that you would say you yourself have, are murdered every day. Telling someone that well only 3% of the activities there is murder isn't really going to make them give a fuck.
You can disagree with them, but if you take the position that a fetus is a child and has every right to live that we give children, it's a pretty black and white stance on what to do about it at that point. There isn't any middle ground, because in their minds murder is being committed.
Langly on
0
Options
Ubikoh pete, that's later. maybe we'll be dead by thenRegistered Userregular
edited April 2011
no, i don't think that's cool or a great idea at all
Cutting funding for Planned Parenthood is stupid, I was just pointing out why it shouldn't be surprising that that statistic doesn't sway anyone from that side of the argument.
The statistic that should sway them is that because of laws we already have in place, no federal money goes towards abortions in the first place.
Posts
Deacon say relax
right and i'm not so sure that they can be in these circumstances
On what theory?
Pretty much, yeah.
Discretionary spending is exactly that.
equal protection? Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena was federal spending. but that was a racial classification so obviously easier
congress also can't make unconstitutional conditions, like only funding libraries that ban certain books, and a right to an abortion is currently a constitutional right
i dunno, i'm just spit ballin here
What if I specifically want my taxes going to abortions instead of breaks for oil companies or to the military?
I want a fetus in every pot!
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
Keep voting dem.
Seems the only logical step if you want to remove all of Planned Parenthood.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
Government mandated bootstraps are given to all children at birth. After that, they wish you the best of luck.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
aw that guy seems so crestfallen
wanna give him a hug
While I personally agree that we need to do more, I also don't think that one position must imply the other.
You don't think cutting funding for planned parenthood will increase the number of children born that would require assistance for food and medical care?
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
Those poors keep complaining about not even having bootstraps. Apparently, that's half the battle, right there.
On the memo line of all of my donation checks, I write "only for abortions."
The quote is an accurate quote from that book; the author's name is the only part that the bloggers got wrong. That specific section of the book cites I Never Called It Rape: The Ms. Report on Recognizing, Fighting, and Surviving Date and Acquaintance Rape for the statistics.
Seems reasonable.
While I think it is total crap that eliminating health services for hundreds of thousands of women is an acceptable casualty to eliminatining of abortions that wil almost certainly happen either way, and that it's completely unconscionable to do that without making provision for those losses...
You articulated a personal opinion without playing gotcha. Sniff. So proud.
Thanks for the info!
*checks off item on bucket list*
to your soft side
hey now
we stopped our genocide against the native population way earlier than they did
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/04/08/general-us-wisconsin-supreme-court-election_8398415.html
Story by AP
*takes out checkbook*
go fuck yourself
Well, at least the clerk responsible for missing the votes doesn't have any sort of connections to Prosser.
There's going to be a probe into the matter, even though it's most likely an innocent mistake
this is really the position of the anti-abortion side of the argument.
I mean, in their minds, it's an institution where people, with as much right to life that you would say you yourself have, are murdered every day. Telling someone that well only 3% of the activities there is murder isn't really going to make them give a fuck.
You can disagree with them, but if you take the position that a fetus is a child and has every right to live that we give children, it's a pretty black and white stance on what to do about it at that point. There isn't any middle ground, because in their minds murder is being committed.
The statistic that should sway them is that because of laws we already have in place, no federal money goes towards abortions in the first place.
edit: or get some of my campaign money back