Planned Parenthood

[Deykari]

As much as our NHS has problems, man I'm glad of it.

Dey

[Pali]

Something worth keeping in mind regarding the proposed Planned Parenthood bill - it will never become law. It'd die in the Senate or be vetoed by Obama. This is Republicans just flexing their new control over the House and playing to their base, as are their bills repealing health care reform.

But the fact that this is just political grandstanding makes it, to me, even more outrageous than if it were honestly intended to do something. The Republicans are just wasting time - they don't want Obama to be able to do anything substantial, so they tie up Congress in BS legislation that they know from the start will never go anywhere. It's all about politics.

[Kyzarius]

Something worth keeping in mind regarding the proposed Planned Parenthood bill - it will never become law. It'd die in the Senate or be vetoed by Obama. This is Republicans just flexing their new control over the House and playing to their base, as are their bills repealing health care reform.

But the fact that this is just political grandstanding makes it, to me, even more outrageous than if it were honestly intended to do something. The Republicans are just wasting time - they don't want Obama to be able to do anything substantial, so they tie up Congress in BS legislation that they know from the start will never go anywhere. It's all about politics.

This.

pisses me off so bad.

[Nekky]

As a general rule I think it is bad public policy, and creates a clear conflict of interest, to put certain utilities in the hands of for-profit organizations. This is because at the end of the day, it is often financially better for these organizations if their 'customers' remain in a state of need rather than a state of being without need.

I'm not saying that all health care is blatant profiteering. I'm just saying that the conflict of interest exists, whether or not anyone is actually taking advantage of it.

A real example:

Just recently here, our State government sold the right to operate mobile and fixed speed-cameras to a private organization. Previously they were run by the Road and Traffic Authority, a government agency with no real leanings one way or the other. Now we have a situation where a private company, with a bottom line and profit margins, owns this service. It is in their financial interest if more people get speeding tickets. And guess what? The number of speeding tickets issued has jumped sharply. I don't think it is the case that more people are speeding now than they were then.

Blatant profiteering? Not necessarily. Bad policy and a conflict of interest? For sure.

[Pali]

As a general rule I think it is bad public policy, and creates a clear conflict of interest, to put certain utilities in the hands of for-profit organizations. This is because at the end of the day, it is often financially better for these organizations if their 'customers' remain in a state of need rather than a state of being without need.

I'm not saying that all health care is blatant profiteering. I'm just saying that the conflict of interest exists, whether or not anyone is actually taking advantage of it.

You are right on the money here. This is indeed a serious problem with health care in this country.

[Pali]

The top 10% of the people in the united states pay over 50% of the taxes for the entire United States and you want to tax them more?

Considering that they own 93% of the country, I think that they only pay 50% of the taxes is them being taxed about 43% too low.

EDIT: Numerical debates like this tend to sidestep one extremely important thing: the bottom 50% that owns only the tiniest sliver of the country? They're the ones who actually need all their money for necessities of life (and for many, this means immediate necessities - long term necessities are often not affordable). That top 10% that pays the (I use this term loosely) heaviest taxes? They're the ones who have massive amounts of luxuries - they're the ones who can afford to give a bit more back to the system that allowed them such excess without starting to worry about if they can afford groceries or medication for their thyroid condition. Also - the government is far more likely to actually put that money into quick circulation through buying things (read this as "immediate job creation and economic stimulus") than the rich are. The private sector is not the only thing that spurs economic growth - the public sector can too.

EDIT 2: Also, I'd like to say this: true democracy does not happen when vast inequalities exist between citizens. The United States is a country where a CEO makes 400 times the average worker pay - this is what I consider to be a vast inequality (for contrast with a country that is doing a lot better than we are currently: in Germany, the ratio is 11 to 1). The Supreme Court decided last year that corporations have the right to spend unlimited amounts of money on political advertising and candidates. I thought this made sense at first, until I realized something: I could gather ten thousand of my neighbors, and we will very likely not have anywhere close to the money to burn on political advertising that a ten-member board of directors will, and we certainly won't have the flexibility and quick decision-making ability that such a small group will. This is a massive inequality of representation that is not based on the numbers of people involved, but the numbers of dollars involved - and that is not democracy.

Texas in particular had a large deficit in teacher retirement and health care so they created a state lottery that caused people to open their pocket books and took care of the problem. And one lucky SOB get's the money and pays taxes on it. You just took money from the state, paid it into the state and taxed it twice for the opportunity to win big.

So, if I'm understanding correctly... a state government copied the private sector model of fleecing millions of people into giving them money for the incredibly tiny chance of winning a portion of that money... and you think that this is a better way for a state to gain revenue than to tax citizens honestly for the good of all?

Lotteries and casinos in the private sector I am fine with - they provide a service, a thrill, that is hard to find elsewhere. But I find myself wholly disapproving of the government appropriating these kind of money-making methods... the government should be more honest with its citizens than this.

[jibber]

true democracy does not happen when vast inequalities exist between citizens. The United States is a country where a CEO makes 400 times the average worker pay - this is what I consider to be a vast inequality (for contrast with a country that is doing a lot better than we are currently: in Germany' date=' the ratio is 11 to 1).[/quote']

You make very good points, and I'd like to point out since I know nothing of the Casino/Lottery thing I won't say anything about it. But what would you define true democracy as? As of now, it's defined as:

a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.

Everyone has equality in their rights and priveleges. Why should we tax someone who is far more successful than the average joe schmoe who goes to work every day at $10.00/hr? At the same time, why should we give them tax cuts to better our economy? I think this is one of those times when I take neither stance -- Democrat or Republican -- and say to hell with them both.

But in ending, I just wanted to re-iterate -- why should we tax someone more if they're successful, as opposed to someone whose not successful? We don't want a communist state here, I'm hoping, because that's where this is going -- everyone owns nothing, and therefore everyone is equal.

No thanks.

[Kyzarius]

You make very good points, and I'd like to point out since I know nothing of the Casino/Lottery thing I won't say anything about it. But what would you define true democracy as? As of now, it's defined as:

Everyone has equality in their rights and priveleges. Why should we tax someone who is far more successful than the average joe schmoe who goes to work every day at $10.00/hr? At the same time, why should we give them tax cuts to better our economy? I think this is one of those times when I take neither stance -- Democrat or Republican -- and say to hell with them both.

But in ending, I just wanted to re-iterate -- why should we tax someone more if they're successful, as opposed to someone whose not successful? We don't want a communist state here, I'm hoping, because that's where this is going -- everyone owns nothing, and therefore everyone is equal.

No thanks.

I do believe that we are asking that the rich pay a portion of their income equal to the percentage paid by the middle class. Instad we get loopholes and tax breaks for the upper class, concessions and hand outs for the lower class, and higher taxes for the middle class (who drive economy forward through consumption).

[jibber]

Indeed. But Pali's post suggested we tax the high class more than the middle or lower class. That's not right.

[Pali]

Everyone has equality in their rights and priveleges.

Really? You think so? You think that we have a society with equal privileges when there are people who own a dozen or so houses that they barely ever live in, and other people getting thrown onto the street because those very same rich people knowingly convinced them to buy bad mortgages? You think we have a society with equal rights when members of our previous Presidential administration are guilty of war crimes but receive absolutely no punishment for it, but a guy who sells weed gets sent to prison for years?

As someone who has spent time living both upper-middle class and lower class... I can tell you that these classes live in entirely different worlds when it comes to rights and privileges.

Why should we tax someone who is far more successful than the average joe schmoe who goes to work every day at $10.00/hr?

For the very reasons I gave above - because they can afford it, and because money being concentrated in relatively few hands creates incredible inequalities among citizens, not just in terms of commodities owned or access to food/shelter/necessities of life, but in electoral representation. They have received far more benefits as members of this society than the average person has. We used to tax them FAR more than we do now... in the 50s, when the US actually was the world's leader in terms of societal health, people making over 400k a year gave 90% of their income to the government (edit: which had the effect of discouraging outrageous CEO pay, which in turn led to corporations spending a higher percentage of their money on investment or lower-level job creation - hey, isn't that what we need now?).

We don't want a communist state here, I'm hoping, because that's where this is going -- everyone owns nothing, and therefore everyone is equal.

I think the human obsession with owning things has done more damage to us as a civilized species than even religion has. I think capitalism is starting to lose its utility as an economic system, and that something that ensures a more equal distribution of goods is going to be necessary for a stable future society (especially as, in the next couple of decades, things like oil or drinkable water become increasingly rare commodities)... the Venus Project from the new Zeitgeist movie would be one example of such an economic system that could deal with these things in something resembling a fair manner.

And I like how you picked definition three from dictionary.com for democracy... perhaps you didn't read definition 1?

government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

Right now, we do not live in a society in which this applies. As I said... it's the numbers of dollars that wins elections, not the numbers of people. And definition 5 should also be remembered...

the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power

We've got that privileged class - and they wield an entirely disproportional amount of political power compared to the common people. Economic inequality creates political inequality - when one person, or when one small group of people, is capable of funding candidates across the political strata, they wield political power entirely out of proportion to their numbers as citizens. Therefore, to ensure equal representation and rights of citizens, it seems logical to me that economic inequality should be strongly discouraged.

[jibber]

I did read the first two -- but the third one explained your stance better. The first two said nothing about 'equality' or 'privelege'.

And I'll respectfully, once again, disagree with your logical reasoning. We hold two different stances, obviously, and while I don't agree with the way our Country is heading, nor do you, I disagree with how you'd like to see it. Communism isn't the way to go, nor should we ever start to believe it could be applicable to the U.S.

But.. since I'm at work posting this, and really have no time to sit and think, gather resources, quote, and spend some time in my reply, I'll have to reply when I get home. Until then!

[Pali]

supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

You don't view whether this applies or not as having to do with equality or privilege?

If you see a flaw in my logic, please, elaborate.

I was not advocating communism. I was advocating a reduction in the level of economic inequality between citizens - this does not require getting rid of private property ownership (it'd be one way to do it, but I doubt this will ever be truly practical).

[jibber]

Once again, I didn't pick and choose for what I wanted to see. I picked and chose what most CLOSELY related to how you explained it.

Let's not get too far into that, please.

[Pali]

Fair enough. I'd still love to hear where you think my logic faulty, however.

[Evangelion]

Planned parenthood started out as, and has always been, a racist organization aimed at the murder of black children. Its founder, Margaret Sanger, created the 'negro project', believed in eugenics, and promoted involuntary sterilization of the disabled and the poor.

I am personally pro-choice, however the mind-games, deviousness, marketing and geographic strategy of planned parenthood targets minorities.

In recent phone calls to planned parenthood, a caller stated "we just think that, you know, the less black kids out there the better"

Planned parenthood replied "understandable".

http://mediamatters.org/research/201102010048

Although planned parenthood has publicly separated themselves from such doctrines, in practice they continue to promote sterilization of the most disenfranchised communities.

It's time for a new organization with community family planning services to step in and do the job. Planned parenthood, in my opinion, practices an agenda that is not consistent with concepts of ethics in science and community health practice. They absolutely should not be getting federal funding.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201102010048

Do your research before you post slanderous hoax videos, yeah?

[Mali]

I wouldn't qualify your source as good research either. I am not promoting the agenda of any organization, I simply stated that planned parenthood was created to be, and still is, a racist organization. I don't feel the need to argue that point further.

I think another organization could provide the same services at a higher quality with less federal dollars.

[Pali]

Except you failed to produce any supporting evidence that Planned Parenthood is a racist organization except for a video from a Pro-Lifer who has a vested interest in making Planned Parenthood look bad that contains only a few questionable sentences from a couple of calls, with no context. Considering how often such edited videos are incredibly misleading (I already mentioned ACORN, another recent example would be what happened with Shirley Sherrod) I would not call this a well-argued point.

EDIT: Also, I've been looking... and I'm not finding much that supports the notion that Sanger was particularly racist. A eugenicist, certainly, anti-immigration and curiously she seems to have been anti-abortion (thought birth control and sterilization were the way to go, but that abortion was taking a life) - but nothing I've found supports claiming that she was racist.

[Mali]

I don't have a horse in this race. The truth is out there. If you can't see that Sanger was a racist, then you are googling with a rose tinted browser.

Eugenics is racism, in the end. Theres no science behind it, and it all comes down to color, class, and a subjective value system.

[Pali]

Uhh... no. You don't get to just equate two concepts that are not the same thing and declare victory. Eugenics did not only exist within the context of racism - it also existed within the context of attempting to remove genetic defects and other negative traits from the human population (this is a kind of eugenics that I'm not 100% opposed to myself). I'm finding plenty to support Sanger being a eugenicist, but everything I've found thus far suggests that she was one of the few for whom race actually didn't factor into her eugenics thinking.

[Mali]

it also existed within the context of attempting to remove genetic defects and other negative traits from the human population (this is a kind of eugenics that I'm not 100% opposed to myself).

Then you are an enemy to Americans with disabilities.

Fortunately, we have laws to protect those living with disabilities from organizations and individuals that share your points of view.

Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 prohibits private employers, state and local governments, employment agencies and labor unions from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities in job application procedures, hiring, firing, advancement, compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.

Furthermore, the World Health Organization statement on sexual rights includes

Sexual rights

Sexual rights embrace human rights that are already recognized in national laws, international human rights documents and other consensus statements. They include the right of all persons, free of coercion, discrimination and violence, to:

the highest attainable standard of sexual health, including access to sexual and reproductive health care services;

seek, receive and impart information related to sexuality;

sexuality education;

respect for bodily integrity;

choose their partner;

decide to be sexually active or not;

consensual sexual relations;

consensual marriage;

decide whether or not, and when, to have children; and

pursue a satisfying, safe and pleasurable sexual life.

The responsible exercise of human rights requires that all persons respect the rights of others.

There is no perfect genetics for a human population. There is no master race. Reproductive rights, even as they pertain to those with disabilities, are to be considered a basic human right. Communities that respect and uphold the rights of others tend to value each individual for their uniqueness, their strengths, their courage, and their humanity, regardless of disabilities or genetic traits.

Pali, for such an empirical and self-proclaimed objective thinker, I continue to be disappointed with how easily you are conned into believing the lies of eugenicists and the faith-based, cyclical, crap-science of racism. I recall an earlier debate where you were intrigued by a posters claims of racial superiority based on cranial measurements of african-americans. Modern biological anthropologists have discredited such ideas thoroughly, just as they have discredited ideas of eugenics and genetic superiority.

Although I am pro-choice, I am against the rampant use of abortion in this country as a means of birth control. Furthermore, I am against second and third trimester abortions except when the life of the mother is in danger. Planned parenthood and their pro-abortion/eugenics based stance to reproductive rights undermine this nations values. That is why I will never support federal funding for such an organization.

By placing criteria on what is superior or inferior in genetics, we step outside the realm of science and into the realm of judgement. Genetic variability is extremely valuable. We can work towards curing medical conditions caused by genes, and we can make personal choices regarding reproduction and genetic screening. However, we cannot place objective value on them without walking on a very slippery slope. No gene is by nature "superior" to another. They are variations on a theme. I would agree that some cause terrible medical conditions that we should seek to cure. We should not, however, devalue individuals with these conditions as humans or infringe upon their basic rights.

[Pali]

Then you are an enemy to Americans with disabilities.

Fortunately, we have laws to protect those living with disabilities from organizations and individuals that share your points of view.

Uh... wow... you are reading far too much into what I said there. I do not support enforced eugenics - I think reproductive decisions should be left up to the individuals involved (I have some sympathy with those who would argue that society pays a cost in helping care for the disabled, but I do not think this cost justifies the removal of such personal rights). However, I also see absolutely nothing wrong with those individuals attempting to prevent their children from being born with various defects... the problem here is mostly a practical one, given the level of complexity in genetics.

I'd also like to point out that most of the public rationalization for incest being illegal is based around the chances that the offspring will have flaws... which is a eugenicist argument, and one I do not support.

There is no perfect genetics for a human population. There is no master race. Reproductive rights, even as they pertain to those with disabilities, are to be considered a basic human right. Communities that respect and uphold the rights of others tend to value each individual for their uniqueness, their strengths, their courage, and their humanity, regardless of disabilities or genetic traits.

I completely agree.

Pali, for such an empirical and self-proclaimed objective thinker, I continue to be disappointed with how easily you are conned into believing the lies of eugenicists and the faith-based, cyclical, crap-science of racism. I recall an earlier debate where you were intrigued by a posters claims of racial superiority based on cranial measurements of african-americans. Modern biological anthropologists have discredited such ideas thoroughly, just as they have discredited ideas of eugenics and genetic superiority.

For someone who is going to attack my level of empiricism and objectivity, you have provided scant little evidence to support any of the claims you have made in this thread. Also, your memory of that conversation contradicts mine here - as I recall, at worst, all I said was that I do not have a personal interest in proving that human populations are all equal in all traits, and that I'm open to evidence showing that they aren't. Thus far, I've never seen any such evidence (beyond such minor things as melanin-content variations being better adapted for certain climates and disease resistance within certain population groups), and consider the idea of a racial basis for discrimination in any field to be absolutely absurd. You are very, very wrong here about what you think I think on these subjects.

EDIT: Here is the thread you were referring to. The statement of mine that you may be recalling was:

Please. I do not care at all about trying to prove that people are all equal. I care about what the evidence indicates. You just gave me a ton of information I'd not seen before. I'm not entirely sober at the moment' date=' and I'd like to look up information regarding the work you cited before making serious judgements on it, but if it's convincing then so be it.[/quote']

You may have forgotten what I said immediately afterwards:

That being said' date=' this does not mean that we should turn a blind eye to suffering and just write it off as natural selection even if there IS proven to be a mental gap. We don't let people just kill off mentally retarded Americans as natural selection, nor do we usually judge an individual's worth purely by their intelligence. If we're the smarter ones, it just makes it more important that we use those smarts to help them instead of exploit them. If we're not the smarter ones, then we should STILL try to help them and not exploit them because violence and political destabilization in a global economy has world-wide effects that are often negative for all.[/quote']

If you care to read the rest of the thread... I spent the majority of it arguing against a racial basis for understanding different rates of human technological development.

Back to you...

Although I am pro-choice' date=' I am against the rampant use of abortion in this country as a means of birth control. Furthermore, I am against second and third trimester abortions except when the life of the mother is in danger. Planned parenthood and their pro-abortion/eugenics based stance to reproductive rights undermine good old fashioned American values.[/quote']

First off, I'm also against abortion being used as a primary means of birth-control. Second, you have not provided any evidence at all that Planned Parenthood supports eugenics, and your evidence of them being racist is both highly questionable and limited to a couple of phone operators (a racist working within an organization does not make the organization racist). Third, Planned Parenthood isn't pro-abortion except in the sense that they offer the procedure - it's not like they're usually pushing it on people who otherwise don't want one. They also provide massive amounts of birth control supplies and pregnancy support services. Fourth, I don't give a damn about good old fashioned American values (which is a wonderful catchphrase that seems to change in meaning from person to person)... I give a damn about protecting the right of a woman to control what happens within her body, to decide whether she wishes to be an incubator or not.

[Mali]

You are very, very wrong here about what you think I think on these subjects.

Thanks for clearing that up. I misjudged you and apologize.

I don't give a damn about good old fashioned American values

You should. These include such values specified in the bill of rights and the constitution.

protecting the right of a woman to control what happens within her body, to decide whether she wishes to be an incubator or not.

I agree only to a point. I would be ok with no-questions-asked first trimester abortions. Everything after that, you should need a very convincing medical argument to terminate a pregnancy. Even if you don't use condoms, the variety of birth control options, including the morning after pill, are widely available and there is no excuse to wait until an abortion is the only option.

[Pali]

Thanks for clearing that up. I misjudged you and apologize.

Accepted.

You should. These include such values specified in the bill of rights and the constitution.

Let me be a little more to the point here: I have a strong distaste for when people use phrasing like "I'm standing up for good old American values", or "I'm standing up for the real America", etc. These are phrases that sound good in uncritical ears, but they really don't have much in the way of meaning to them unless we grant them a context. "Good old American values" at various times have included slavery, segregation, women not being able to vote, racist immigration policies... the list goes on. And lets not treat the Constitution as some sort of perfect sacred text... it's been changed plenty of times since its inception, and I expect it to be changed more in the future.

It's not that I don't think there are lots of American values worthy of praise... I absolutely do. But the catchphrases and soundbites I do not care for at all.

I agree only to a point. I would be for no-questions-asked first trimester abortions. Everything after that, you should need a very convincing medical argument to terminate a pregnancy. Even if you don't use condoms, the variety of birth control options, including the morning after pill, are widely available and there is no excuse to wait until an abortion is the only option.

While I also tend to agree that first trimester abortions should be preferred... the above simplifies often complex real-world issues. I do agree that post-viability abortions should generally only be done when a life is at risk... but frankly, I am not comfortable with demanding at any point that someone allow their body to be used as a support system for someone else.

[Mali]

But the catchphrases and soundbites I do not care for at all.

Hey... its just politics.

What say you and I join forces? We could be a great team. I'm thinking fire giant shaman and berserker...

[Pali]

I can't do fire giants... RPing stupid characters is something I find incredibly difficult.