Abortion: Which Side Is Fabricating?

[Garfield1966]

I think for the most part yes. Our public education system, even for all it's faults is one of the best in the world. There is much room for improvement but I do not think it has a counter part anywhere else. Defense is a rip off but anytime you have a for profit organization dealing with government that has poor over sight and representatives with a personal interest in making the for profit group happy that will occur. National parks are excellent. That alone is worth it for me. But there again, the people charged with it's protection are also trying to make various for profit groups happy and since the parks do not 'make money' they tend to loose out more times than not. Interstates are pretty good for the most part. Granted they are not the autobahn but then again they were not intended to be (sucks for me). Given the quality of cars and the level of training people have who drive, 70mph is about as fast as they ought to be going. Allow them to go 120mph and the morgues would be over flowing. Fire and police are also pretty impressive (yes they are city/state but still gov run). Given their performance under pressure (9/11 comes to mind) I think they do a phenomenal job. FAA seems to do a pretty decent job from my perspective. Yes they need updated equipment but no one wants to pay so they make what they have work. Medicare seems to work pretty well also. The cost of health care is making it go bankrupt but the structure it's self seems to be pretty sound. The elderly are not left out in the cold without medical care and I think that is a good thing. Seems that with SS and Med Care there are more using than paying into the system due to the pop explosion of the 40's-50's and it cannot keep pace. That along with the COLA increases have put the systems into a pickle. Unfortunately, given our short sighted view, we did not do something to prepare for this time 40 or 50 years ago. Kin of like the car manufactures/we did not do anything 30 years ago during the first gas crunch.

Sure the money could be spent more efficiently. Any time you have a large entity (Federal government) there will be waste. Given the broad spectrum of people that need to be pleased and knowing you cannot please all of the people all of the time, I think it's about as good as can be expected for a people who do not give a damn about their government and do not care enough to have a rational conversation about most topics. I think we have a better government than we probably deserve.

 

[Garfield1966]

Given what our public education system has to work with I think they do an excellent job. Must other education systems have various restriction of who can attend. Anyone and everyone here in the US can go to a public school.

I think schools should be regulated on both a city/state and federal level. I do not believe that people in Jackson, MS should have poorer schools than those in Beverly Hills, CA. The quality of education should be equal in both or any other public institution anywhere in the country. Separate but equal is n longer allowed in this country and separate is never equal in this country. Given the little attention we give to our public education system in the US, I think it does quite well.

It is my understanding that a majority of the taxes collected from fuel and what not are diverted to other uses and get placed into a big bucket with all the other tax money. I don't care what they call the tax. Whether the IRS collects it or it gets collected at the pump, it's still a federal tax and as such, the federal tax maintains the federal roads. Get rid of the income tax and the usage taxs go up. Get rid of the usage tax and the income tax will increase.

I live in TX where there is no income tax. Great huh? I pay over 3% property tax. So, the money comes from somewhere.

Same thing goes for the parks. So they call the tax a usage fee. Big whoop. The Feds collect it and as such it's a federal tax and federal tax money maintains the federal parks. As far as the question of is it their roll? I say hell yes it is. They are the only ones who have the resources to maintain them IMO. States are too interested in money and can be trusted less than the Fed to act to preserve the parks. At the Fed level, it would take much more to abolish a park than at a state or city level.

I am confused, you cite the example of AMS but say it is not the purview of the state? Out side of NV, no other state allows sex to be sold like a consumable good. Like I said earlier. I do not want government to legislate sex. Just want them to mandate that it is taught. See my "A" and "B" example. What people do with the info is up to them.

I am not a big fan of 'state rights' when t comes to universal issues. I understand that something like water management in NV is different than it would be in FL and that's fine. I do not feel that the punishment for rape should be different in MS than in CA. I do not believe that a diploma from MS should be of any lesser value than a diploma from CA. Those are areas where I feel there should be federal guidelines and money should come out of a federal trough.

 

[Garfield1966]

And blacks wee not considered a full human either. Things change.

As for what makes a good school. How about all of the above and a few other things as well.

I believe certain needs of education are/should be the same for all. Reading, writing and math are the same all over the world. No matter where you go, 2+2 will all ways equal 4. So those standards are universal. The molecular make up of water is the same all over the world so the standards for science are universal. Computer literacy should not be different in McDowell or Bergen. If one wants band and the other wants foot ball, have at it.

What schools do above and beyond the basics should be up to them, but the basics need to be standardized and all schools need to meet them.

 

[Garfield1966]

COTUS also did not grant women equal rights or blacks. Things change. COTUS does not address a lot of things that government does.

To be quite honest I do not care if COTUS does not address public education. I stand by my belief that certain basics of education need to be standardized. If schools want to vary on other issues, fine, but the basic need to standard across the nation.

 

[dapoes]

COTUS also did not grant women equal rights or blacks. Things change. COTUS does not address a lot of things that government does.

To be quite honest I do not care if COTUS does not address public education. I stand by my belief that certain basics of education need to be standardized. If schools want to vary on other issues, fine, but the basic need to standard across the nation.

Spoken like a true socialist.

 

[Garfield1966]

I assume you like keeping the amended COTUS and not the original one.

How does wanting schools to teach the same standard of math, science, english through out the nation make me a socialist? Never mind. The term socialist is thrown about so much it no longer has any meaning.

I for one am glad abortion will still be covered under what ever health plan comes about if it gets passed.

 

[Freedom4all]

I assume you like keeping the amended COTUS and not the original one.

How does wanting schools to teach the same standard of math, science, english through out the nation make me a socialist? Never mind. The term socialist is thrown about so much it no longer has any meaning.

For those that embrace it then yes. For the rest, not so much.

I for one am glad abortion will still be covered under what ever health plan comes about if it gets passed.

Of course you are. Why would we think any different?

 

[delldude]

What kind of health care plan kills unborn children? Just horrible.

How about one that could easily morph into restricting the amount of children you can have that would make abortion required if you violate the restriction?

President Obama's "science czar," John Holdren, once floated the idea of forced abortions, "compulsory sterilization," and the creation of a "Planetary Regime" that would oversee human population levels and control all natural resources as a means of protecting the planet -- controversial ideas his critics say should have been brought up in his Senate confirmation hearings.

It makes me shudder to think that a person with this type of thinking is now advising POTUS.

"I wish that the Commerce Committee had taken more time to evaluate his record during his nomination hearing, but like with everything else in this new Washington environment, the Democratic majority and the White House were pushing to speed his nomination along," Vitter said.

Article

Holdren's radicalism dates back to the late 1960s. In 1969 Holdren wrote that it was imperative “to convince society and its leaders that there is no alternative but the cessation of our irresponsible, all-demanding, and all-consuming population growth.â€￾

Additional

I would be very concerned and watchful of an administration with these kind of thinkers....Holdren isn't alone either....

 

[Garfield1966]

Definitely in favor of population restriction ideas. I think other options are available before we turn to caps on family size and forced abortion. I have always thought the idea of tax breaks for having ids was a bit backwards. I like the idea of no tax break for the first 2 children and a tax penalty for anything above two. If we still see an unsustainable population growth, then more drastic measures can be looked at but there are numerous other options available before that has to become a reality.

As for abortion. If you don't want one, don't have one. No one is compelled to have one. My wife had one when she was 16. Had sex, got pregnant and decided that bringing a child into the world at that time in her life was not a good idea. She has no regrets. It's her body and her decision. She is a productive member of society providing health care for those who cannot do it them selves. Had he had the child, who knows what her life would have been.

Perhaps had sex ed been taught in school and contraceptives been easily available she would not have found her self in that situation. Unfortunately, the knee jerk segment of society just wants people to stop having sex except for reproductive purposes. Never mind that mother nature did not design humans that way and that it goes against human nature.

 

[Freedom4all]

Definitely in favor of population restriction ideas. I think other options are available before we turn to caps on family size and forced abortion.

Awesome, you know this one guy shared the same views and eventually put it into practice. I think his name was Adolf or something...

 

[Garfield1966]

Awesome, you know this one guy shared the same views and eventually put it into practice. I think his name was Adolf or something...

Hitler murdered people. He placed no population restrictions on Germany. In fact he wanted to create a master race that would require breading. Perhaps you should read more history books instead of tossing out ignorant comments.

 

[Garfield1966]

I do hope that the RNC takes your elective surgery/boob job idea to heart. That will guarantee that abortions will remain part of the hleath care future of the country.

While abortion is in most cases not a life saving procedure, to put it on the same level as breast enhancement is insulting. Ask nearly any woman who has had one and they will tell you it is a life changing decision which most wish they never had to be in.

But by all means, put it on a bumper sticker and let me know how it works for you.

 

[Garfield1966]

I do not consider population restriction the same as genocide. But it's a free world and you can believe what you want.

Perhaps we have different definitions of life changing.

 

[Freedom4all]

Hitler murdered people. He placed no population restrictions on Germany. In fact he wanted to create a master race that would require breading. Perhaps you should read more history books instead of tossing out ignorant comments.

Ignorant comments? You mean like this:

Definitely in favor of population restriction ideas. I think other options are available before we turn to caps on family size and forced abortion.

Sounds like a variation on a Final Solution.

 

[Garfield1966]

I do not believe the ideas are equal. In virtually all animal species except man, mother nature culls the herd via, starvation, disease or other methods. According to biologists, this is done to maintain the species and keep it in check. Man has found ways to circumvent nature. If a species were to grow to large, it could out grow it's resources and then then entire species would be at risk of extinction. If you look at the population growth, at some point we will exceed the ability to survive on the given resources. I would prefer that we be proactive about population growth rather than maintain our history of being reactive to problems that arise.

Your portrayal of my position is false. I never said there should be any restrictions on who should be able to reproduce. Those are your words and your attempt to steer the argument. All I am saying is that I believe there should be a limit of 2 children per couple (replacement) and no more. It is my belief that this is another pay now or pay more later. At some point, the worlds population will exceed the earth's capacity. If we wait till then, it may be to late and earth will take care of the problem for us.

I do not like the idea of forced abortions or population control. I am pretty sure that I will not live long enough to experience the consequences of unrestricted growth. I am pretty sure my nieces will have to deal with it and I am positive their offspring will be cursing our names for not doing something for such an obvious problem. Hopefully, we will start giving incentives for smaller families and disincentives for larger ones. With any luck, that will have the desired outcome to restrict population growth to a manageable level. Third world countries and religious dogma will be an issue that will need to be dealt with.

freedoms are not absolute. I support the right of free speech but as the old adage gos, you still cannot cry fire in a crowded room. I believe in a woman's right to choose her own destiny. That right will be restricted at some point when her right to have 10 children affect the right of someone else to have enough food, water and space to live.