• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Late Clash on Abortion Shows Conservatives’ Sway

apdst said:
I would rather see my tax dollars go towards having those ol' girls sterilized.
Click to expand...

Planned Parenthood does that......if funding is cut, they'll probably have to cut those services.
 
hazlnut said:
First and second term fetuses are not viable and therefore not alive. You can't 'kill' something that is not alive.

Your hyper-partisan Christian talking points speak is a major fail.
Click to expand...

Not alive??

If they have a heartbeat they are alive. Even animals understand this.

There is something tragically wrong with the education system if there are those who don't understand such a very simple concept.
 
OKgrannie said:
Planned Parenthood does that......if funding is cut, they'll probably have to cut those services.
Click to expand...

What I find amusing is that since federal money cannot fund abortion, what all this would have defunded was everything but abortion services provided by PP. Abortion services have to pay for themselves already, so they would not be touched, but preventive services would be. I consider that evidence that the people involved in this where either trying to appease their less than bright constitutions, or where not real bright themselves.
 
Chappy said:
The most radical social conservative elements, really terrorists amongst us, have tried to bring America to its knees. They failed but they were far too close to succeeding.
Click to expand...

Isn't this an overreact even for you. News bulletin, conservatives hold a lot of power in the Republican party and liberals hold a lot of power in the democratic.

There I said it. If that is new news to anyone in a political debate site I have to admit to being shocked.

I am also not surprised that a NY Times reporter said that this was the last stumbling block to a negotiation, when I thought all along it was a bargaining chip. Not sure if you have ever been in a high stakes negotiation. It is not unusual to go into it with points you know the other side will hate and you are happy to trade for something you really want.

Start from the beginning of this budget fight. Republicans originally wanted to pass something like a $33 billion cut. The extreme wing wanted more so $61 billion was passed in HR1. The final agreement comes to something like $38 billion.

So anyone who has passed negotiation 101 would probably conclude that there was a lot of smoke but one side got more than they had hoped for. Usually considered a win in any negotiation.

When I came out of a negotiation with a conclusion similar to the facts above, we would break out the fine wine and cigars!
 
the big picture fallout from this deal is the new austerity agenda which the president himself is now racing to embrace

White House: Obama to lay out spending plan - Yahoo! Finance

from albany to sacramento (and from athens to brussels, as well), there's no stopping it---the austerity agenda

ie, nothing you can do

sorry

stay up
 
and the pp piece rather revealed the democrats' heart as much as it did mike pence's

an important part of the progressive pulse, apparently, is planned parenthood

cuz a QUARTER BILLION per year aint chimp change, y'know

seeya on the floor
 
in other words, washington dc is starting to catch up to andrew cuomo and jerry moonbeam brown

enjoy your weekend, sundays are precious
 
The Prof said:
the big picture fallout from this deal is the new austerity agenda which the president himself is now racing to embrace

White House: Obama to lay out spending plan - Yahoo! Finance

from albany to sacramento (and from athens to brussels, as well), there's no stopping it---the austerity agenda

ie, nothing you can do

sorry

stay up
Click to expand...

Define austerity. Having a budget deficit of only $1.5 trillion, while perhaps moving in the right direction is a long way from austerity. We will learn the real meaning of the word when the world demands materially higher levels of interest unless we get our deficits under control. Who knows when that will happen, perhaps in 5 years or 5 days, but happen it will.

Ask the people of ireland and Portugal in a couple of years if they wish they put their fiscal house in order before the world made them.
 
washunut said:
Define austerity. Having a budget deficit of only $1.5 trillion, while perhaps moving in the right direction is a long way from austerity. We will learn the real meaning of the word when the world demands materially higher levels of interest unless we get our deficits under control. Who knows when that will happen, perhaps in 5 years or 5 days, but happen it will.

Ask the people of ireland and Portugal in a couple of years if they wish they put their fiscal house in order before the world made them.
Click to expand...

Priorities of any government, and the importance the public attaches to them, means a great deal.

When women having access to free abortions becomes more important than balancing budgets, then the future of the country becomes a little more murky.
 
Grant said:
Priorities of any government, and the importance the public attaches to them, means a great deal.

When women having access to free abortions becomes more important than balancing budgets, then the future of the country becomes a little more murky.
Click to expand...

That was a sideshow, a bargaining chip. The democrats did a very good job duping people who wanted to be duped that the issue was PP. If I recall correctly they cut 38 billion and PP was not touched so why keep bringing it up. The other side offered zero cuts. So to say that the 300 million has anything really to do with the debate I find disengenuous. To say after an agreement was reached and the topic was taken off the table raises the level of talking about this topic to something worse than a talking point.

In my view senator Reid lied to the american public, saying that the fight was about PP. I use the word lied because he knew that in a negtiation there are all sorts of positions by both sides. If the republicans had said PP was a dealbreaker then that would be one thing. To the best of my knowledge and the facts seem to bear out they did not hold that issue as a dealbreaker.

Let's try and have substantive debates on issues, not one side or the other's talking points.
 
washunut said:
That was a sideshow, a bargaining chip.
Click to expand...

what's wrong with bargaining chips

i mean, when they're accompanied by substance

Republican Budget Makes $4 Trillion-Plus In Cuts : NPR

up to now, the white house and the senate as well have offered squat in the way of leadership on real budget reform

plouffe on all the sunday talks today (mtp, this week, sotu) said the president THIS WEEK will offer HIS version of ryan

White House: Obama to lay out spending plan - Yahoo! Finance

the point---it's STILL a bargaining chip, one chalk full of conviction on both sides

ie, it's amerian politics

reid conceded an up or down floor vote NOT on abortion funding or women's services

but instead the referendum guaranteed by reid will be stand alone to determine the fate of a QUARTER BILLION dollars of public trust invested every year in PLANNED PARENTHOOD

we'll be talking about THAT, among some much larger dollar issues

stay up
 
today:

Here’s the unvarnished pitch House Speaker John Boehner would love to make to his conservative critics if he could just let it fly: “You are winning, and winning decisively. So stop your whining.”

And here’s the unvarnished truth about that pitch: Boehner would be spot on.

The winners and losers of this weekend’s 11th-hour budget deal may be in dispute. But the broader trajectory of politics, stretching back to the spring of 2009, is not. The Republican — and, yes, the tea party — agenda is not only ascendant, it’s driving the debate over reshaping government at every level.

Jubilant top Republicans told POLITICO in interviews that they plan to use the momentum from the budget fight to take a hard line with President Barack Obama in the fiscal fights of the months ahead.
Click to expand...

The GOP's winning streak - POLITICO.com

roger simon's journolisters continue (for 4 pages):

what's going on in new york and california

our public unions are racing to places like madison eager to have their pay-ins upped and their bennies downed

a "top democrat official:" "the fundamental problem of the whole process is democrats have zero ability to describe what our view of government really is, so basically all we do is defend the status quo against attacks from the right-wing fringe of the gop"

obama taking credit for "the biggest annual spending cut in our history" twice during his 5:00 saturday address (what used to be called for decades the president's radio address)

obama at 11:30 pm friday, standing in front of the window that puts the washington monument behind his right shoulder, said the exact same talking point---"the biggest annual spending cut in our history"

"sure to take credit for cutting spending even tho he fought it most of the way"

40 bil in cuts, the end of earmarks, the extension of the bush tax cuts

"some centrist democrats and even some liberals PRAISE [politico's emphasis] ryan"

900 state reps last november, 21 state assemblies

new jersey and virginia in 09, massachusetts in early 10

the house, 6 senators, 10 gubs

the state labs---wisconsin, ohio, indiana, michigan, jersey, illinois, florida

house republicans want more---cuts, budget REFORM

leadership emboldened

debt ceiling and 2012 budget---may, june and july

it's not whether to cut but how much

could the republicans overreach?

tea is "restless"

karl rove---impatient republicans need to see that leadership has "created the opportunity for trillions"

the tea members are with boehner, the ones i (rove) talk to

newt---boehner's calm demeanor, professionalism

"very methodical"

politico: "the broader political concern for republicans is this---can they prevent obama from claiming credit for the new frugal spirit, obama wants to and has more tools than his adversaries"

fyi

do you think obama can succeed in "claiming credit for the new frugal spirit?"

do you want him to?
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
No. I'm saying that it is sometimes about convienience.
Click to expand...

That would be most of the time yes?

You want the change, you figure out the solution. YOU'RE the one that is invested in the change. Stands to reason that you would want to figure out how to manage that change. Not my job to do your work for you.
Click to expand...

The issue is all the problems you mentioned are already problems with abortion allowed. Really, you are just demanding that I solve all the problems in society that exist today before I can suggest prohibiting abortion. If there was a widespread practice of allowing people to kill newborns for convenience I doubt you would make the same kind of demand. Your problem is you start off with the presumption that allowing it is not as bad as stopping it. However, for people who see it as the senseless slaughter of countless innocent lives it is far less reasonable to suggest that there needs to be a solution to all the problems in our child-care system before it can be stopped.

Currently, abortion is legal. There is nothing that you said above that alters that fact. Disagree all you like. Doesn't change things, currently.
Click to expand...

Except the question of legality is not dependent on the ruling of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled it was legal, but as I said their ruling was not in tune with the law. Unfortunately, there is no group but the Supreme Court that can correct the error since the Supreme Court also gave itself final authority over the interpretation of the law.

CaptainCourtesy said:
You're the one who wants to end abortion. How about YOU adopt a few of them?
Click to expand...

More unreasonable comments. The notion that anyone who is against abortion should adopt a child is ridiculous because it ignores that not everyone can do it. If you are a single person on minimum wage adoption is probably not a good idea, that does not mean you should not be able to say a child can be put up for adoption instead of being killed without being called a hypocrite.

Kali said:
Early term abortions do not involve an acutal baby and I am glad that I live in a country where a woman has a choice on what she can or cannot do to her own body.

Also not to sound sexist? I bet if some males who are so convinced that abortions equals murder had to be the ones that got pregnant? They would change their tunes.
Click to expand...

If I woke up tomorrow with a vagina and breasts I can tell you right now it wouldn't change my opinion on abortion. As far as an "actual baby" I call them babies as most people would when they are not debating abortion and consider any technical classification irrelevant as it is just an attempt at dehumanizing the victim. That you are talking about a living human being is all that matters.

hazlnut said:
First and second term fetuses are not viable and therefore not alive. You can't 'kill' something that is not alive.
Click to expand...

That is just plain stupid. Not being viable just means not capable of living outside the womb. It is not the same thing as not being alive.

Redress said:
What I find amusing is that since federal money cannot fund abortion, what all this would have defunded was everything but abortion services provided by PP. Abortion services have to pay for themselves already, so they would not be touched, but preventive services would be. I consider that evidence that the people involved in this where either trying to appease their less than bright constitutions, or where not real bright themselves.
Click to expand...

Abortion provides approximately $30 million in revenue, while the government provides $300 million in funding. Losing ten times as much money can be a strong incentive. If Planned Parenthood would sooner keep abortion for its $30 million and cut those preventive services by $300 million then this just proves they are more about abortion then they like to say and thus the action is justified.

People can easily get contraception elsewhere. However, Planned Parenthood is the leading provider of abortion, providing about a third of the abortions in the United States. I think shutting it down would be all around better than keeping it. In fact, pretty much every other service they provide is a drop in the bucket compared to their contribution to the abortion practice.
 
washunut said:
That was a sideshow, a bargaining chip. The democrats did a very good job duping people who wanted to be duped that the issue was PP. If I recall correctly they cut 38 billion and PP was not touched so why keep bringing it up. The other side offered zero cuts. So to say that the 300 million has anything really to do with the debate I find disengenuous. To say after an agreement was reached and the topic was taken off the table raises the level of talking about this topic to something worse than a talking point.

In my view senator Reid lied to the american public, saying that the fight was about PP. I use the word lied because he knew that in a negtiation there are all sorts of positions by both sides. If the republicans had said PP was a dealbreaker then that would be one thing. To the best of my knowledge and the facts seem to bear out they did not hold that issue as a dealbreaker.

Let's try and have substantive debates on issues, not one side or the other's talking points.
Click to expand...

If political leaders are openly discussing the issues then it seems clear that they are more than just 'talking points' and reflect the philosophical position of the parties.

And to say that a political leader lied, in this case Harry Reid, over the abortion funding issue, he seems doubly damned.

The main issue in this upcoming election, as it is elsewhere, is debt. The Democrats appear to prefer funding abortions rather than looking at the national debt and deficits and they are making that an election issue. If the American people would prefer to fund abortions and radio stations rather than look after their fiscal responsibilities then their future seems clear.
 
Grant said:
The Democrats appear to prefer funding abortions rather than looking at the national debt and deficits and they are making that an election issue. If the American people would prefer to fund abortions and radio stations rather than look after their fiscal responsibilities then their future seems clear.
Click to expand...

The federal government doesn't fund abortions. It funds cancer screenings and contraception.
 
theplaydrive said:
The federal government doesn't fund abortions. It funds cancer screenings and contraception.
Click to expand...

Then perhaps they should disassociate themselves from Planned Parenthood because there are many who feel that PP is carrying out abortions and that funding by the Feds is what makes this possible. Maybe they can establish clinics devoted entirely to contraception and cancer screenings without having the stigma of abortion attached..
 
Grant said:
Then perhaps they should disassociate themselves from Planned Parenthood because there are many who feel that PP is carrying out abortions and that funding by the Feds is what makes this possible. Maybe they can establish clinics devoted entirely to contraception and cancer screenings without having the stigma of abortion attached..
Click to expand...

I understand the sentiment, but from my perspective, ending federal funding to their abortion services was enough. I don't see any practical or medical reason or benefit for PP to stop abortion services. When abortion is scientifically proven to be harmful, then I'll change my mind.
 
Social conservatives just can't quite see the 97% of Planned Parenthood's activities addressing non-abortion-related women's health services; e.g., cancer screenings, education and contraceptives. 100% of federal funding to Planned Parenthood goes towards that 97%; 0% goes to the other 3%.
 
Chappy said:
Social conservatives just can't quite see the 97% of Planned Parenthood's activities addressing non-abortion-related women's health services; e.g., cancer screenings, education and contraceptives. 100% of federal funding to Planned Parenthood goes towards that 97%; 0% goes to the other 3%.
Click to expand...

No, we are against abortion and we would prefer funding go to another organization or a created organization that specializes in women's health and reproductive health that doesn't also provide abortions or encourage it. Funding PP's other activities may offset their budget to place more money into abortions. It certainly allows them to make more facilities and allow for more abortions even if there is no federal aid that directly goes to abortions.
 
Chappy said:
Social conservatives just can't quite see the 97% of Planned Parenthood's activities addressing non-abortion-related women's health services; e.g., cancer screenings, education and contraceptives. 100% of federal funding to Planned Parenthood goes towards that 97%; 0% goes to the other 3%.
Click to expand...

Cancer screenings by Planned Parenthood represent less than 5% of the screenings in the country. They are a little more prominent in contraceptives, though still not rising above 10%. The reality is that Planned Parenthood's most prominent role is in the abortion industry.
 
Demon of Light said:
Cancer screenings by Planned Parenthood represent less than 5% of the screenings in the country. They are a little more prominent in contraceptives, though still not rising above 10%. The reality is that Planned Parenthood's most prominent role is in the abortion industry.
Click to expand...

1. Can I see the source for those numbers?
2. I would argue that Planned Parenthood's most prominent role is in the "providing sexual health services to poor women" industry - particularly considering that "75 percent [of PP clients] have incomes below 150 percent of the poverty line".

What Planned Parenthood actually does - Ezra Klein - The Washington Post
 
Demon of Light said:
That would be most of the time yes?
Click to expand...

Didn't say that.

The issue is all the problems you mentioned are already problems with abortion allowed. Really, you are just demanding that I solve all the problems in society that exist today before I can suggest prohibiting abortion. If there was a widespread practice of allowing people to kill newborns for convenience I doubt you would make the same kind of demand. Your problem is you start off with the presumption that allowing it is not as bad as stopping it. However, for people who see it as the senseless slaughter of countless innocent lives it is far less reasonable to suggest that there needs to be a solution to all the problems in our child-care system before it can be stopped.
Click to expand...

People seeing it as a senseless slaughter is an appeal to emotion and irrelevant. I am not asking you to solve society's problems. I am asking you to come up with a plan of how to deal with the MUCH larger number of unwanted children and children to those who are unadvantaged. Without the option for abortion, there will be far more of these than there are now. You want this. You come up with how to deal with it. This is the issue that pro-lifers always get stuck on... it causes you to have to think about this situation rationally rather than emotionally.

Except the question of legality is not dependent on the ruling of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled it was legal, but as I said their ruling was not in tune with the law. Unfortunately, there is no group but the Supreme Court that can correct the error since the Supreme Court also gave itself final authority over the interpretation of the law.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Currently, it is legal.

More unreasonable comments. The notion that anyone who is against abortion should adopt a child is ridiculous because it ignores that not everyone can do it. If you are a single person on minimum wage adoption is probably not a good idea, that does not mean you should not be able to say a child can be put up for adoption instead of being killed without being called a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

If you have no plan and no solutions in order to deal with your proposal, then your proposal has no reason to be considered. You want to make an appeal to emotion argument, be my guest, but there is no substance to it. If YOU want abortion to stop, then it is up to YOU to develop plans for what happens next. I am fine with how things are. Right now, you folks are in the minority. You want to convince some of us? You'll have to do a whole lot better than you're doing.
 
Demon of Light said:
Cancer screenings by Planned Parenthood represent less than 5% of the screenings in the country. They are a little more prominent in contraceptives, though still not rising above 10%. The reality is that Planned Parenthood's most prominent role is in the abortion industry.
Click to expand...

This information is a diversion and did not address what Chappy said. Your reponse was dishonest. Chappy indicated a minor breakdown of the percentages of services provided by PP. 3% are abortions. YOU then discussed the percentage of services PP provides compared to those in the entire country. Completely different issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom