Spain goes back to 30 years ago with the new Abortion law.

[Ace Nova]

Copy and pasta all you want but that still doesn't diminish the fact that one party, as a platform, despise public schooling and oppose increased spending of nearly any kind non-military. Republicans or "the extreme right" support a lot of things until they realize they actually have to pay for it.

And nice blanket statement of what constitutes the extreme left.

There's a difference between lawmakers and national opinion.

So what would you define as the extreme left?

[Rustycage]

There's not much difference between lawmakers and conservative people polled on spending. Shit, everyone supports curing AIDS, housing the homeless and feeding the sick. That doesn't mean that everyone automatically condones the means to do so.

You were the one spouting about extreme left. Be more descriptive instead of reading like a FOX news disclaimer.

Edited December 29, 2013 by Rustycage

[Ace Nova]

There's not much difference between lawmakers and conservative people polled on spending. Shit, everyone supports curing AIDS, housing the homeless and feeding the sick. That doesn't mean that everyone automatically condones the means to do so.

You were the one spouting about extreme left. Be more descriptive instead of reading like a FOX news disclaimer.

In 2010, Congress eliminated two federal programs that had funded abstinence-only education; the Adolescent Family Life (AFL)^[11] Prevention program and the Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) program;^[12] $13 million and $99 million a year, respectively for a total of $112 million a year.

That same year, two new evidenced-based sex education programs were initiated; the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP),^[13] and the Teen Pregnancy Prevention (TPP) initiative;^[14] $55 million and $100 million, respectively, for a total of $155 million a year.

Funding for Title V, Section 510 abstinence-only education had expired in 2009, but was reinstated by a provision in the 2010 health care reform law by Senator Orrin Hatch. Although this funding stands at $50 million a year, only $33 million seems to have actually been awarded.^[15]

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_education_in_the_United_States}

So yes...even Republicans in Congress funded sex education programs....as well as eliminated "abstinence only" programs. Maybe your theory and data on conservatives in reference to sex education is a little outdated?

Fox News?

You must have me confused with someone else.

I'm a Centrist...actually, non partisan/independent.

Edited December 29, 2013 by Kasanova King

[Rustycage]

Is one wiki link supposed to contradict the entire platform of that party? Don't act like public schools are overflowing with funding and the Republicans are dying to throw money into new programs. I'm sorry but not everyone is dumb enough to believe that.

Again, you spouted about extreme left so can you describe who you are referring to? Maybe a handful of names?

BTW, I said you read like a FOX news disclaimer with that extreme left bullshit. I don't care if you're a centrist.

And maybe your posts need more smileys.

[Ace Nova]

Is one wiki link supposed to contradict the entire platform of that party? Don't act like public schools are overflowing with funding and the Republicans are dying to throw money into new programs. I'm sorry but not everyone is dumb enough to believe that.

Again, you spouted about extreme left so can you describe who you are referring to? Maybe a handful of names?

BTW, I said you read like a FOX news disclaimer with that extreme left bullshit. I don't care if you're a centrist.

And maybe your posts need more smileys.

Can you show me a link or evidence (recent) stating that the Republican party is opposed to sex education?....because everything I've found recently states otherwise.

When I stated extreme left - it was intended as a philosophical statement - and I'll even go as far as stating specific issues - like you stated, it's not fair to generalize....more along the lines of specific issues. If someone blindly follows a certain issue with no thought of their own....they're probably a fanatic. If you would like to post a specific view, I would be more than happy to tell you whether I consider it as an "extreme left" view.

You statement seems to be a defense mechanism....you automatically assumed I was conservative because I threatened your (I'm assuming) liberal views. Many people that aren't extremely liberal wouldn't equate a statement like that with Fox News.

If the emoticons bother you, I'm more than happy to eliminate them. No problem.

[Rustycage]

Maybe you should check out the GOP's own website before wiki.

Broaching the subject of sex education in schools, the Republican platform issues a renewed call for replacing “family planning” programs for teens with abstinence education, as that is the only way to protect against out-of-wedlock pregnancies and sexually-transmitted diseases. Branching off of that, the party opposes school-based clinics that provide referrals, counseling and related services for abortion and contraception.

P.S. I couldn't care less what you think of my views and whether you consider them liberal. It just gets old watching you spout off like a rhetoric sprinkler in nearly every topic.

[Ace Nova]

Maybe you should check out the GOP's own website before wiki.

Broaching the subject of sex education in schools, the Republican platform issues a renewed call for replacing “family planning” programs for teens with abstinence education, as that is the only way to protect against out-of-wedlock pregnancies and sexually-transmitted diseases. Branching off of that, the party opposes school-based clinics that provide referrals, counseling and related services for abortion and contraception.

Maybe you're right....maybe that is their "platform" but national polls and the way Congress has voted to fund sex education in real world scenarios states otherwise. For the most part, the Federal Government (other than some funding) has left sex education laws at the state level. And I can't say I disagree with that either.

[Ace Nova]

P.S. I couldn't care less what you think of my views and whether you consider them liberal. It just gets old watching you spout off like a rhetoric sprinkler in nearly every topic.

Because I stated that I didn't agree with the extreme right and that the majority of the U.S. is in favor of sex education? LOL. (Since posting emoticons hurts your fragile state of mind).

[Rustycage]

It just looks like something a 16 year old girl would be posting with all of the smileys. Aren't you a grown man?

It doesn't look very centrist to just say "extreme right blegh and extreme left blegh" when you can't even describe your own definition of extreme left as if they are polluting up the political atmosphere.

It reminds me of all those "Libertarians" in between elections that suddenly become conservatives around election time.

[Ace Nova]

It just looks like something a 16 year old girl would be posting with all of the smileys. Aren't you a grown man?

It doesn't look very centrist to just say "extreme right blegh and extreme left blegh" when you can't even describe your own definition of extreme left as if they are polluting up the political atmosphere.

It reminds me of all those "Libertarians" in between elections that suddenly become conservatives around election time.

I hear you...no problem.

Extreme left....let's see...I already stated what I thought would fit the definition....but I'll humor you....

Ok....since this thread is about abortion.....

An extreme left view of abortion/pro choice/pro -life debate would be someone who states that it is a woman's right to choose to have an abortion no matter what the circumstance or how late in the pregnancy it would occur. If a woman decides to have an abortion in her 3rd trimester, it's perfectly ok for her to do so....even though it requires the doctor to tear the fetus apart limb for limb.

That's an extreme liberal view of abortion.

Edited December 29, 2013 by Kasanova King

[Rustycage]

Care to show where anyone has said they want late term abortions? From what I've seen across several boards and many discussions is a consensus that there definitely needs to be a limit to how late abortions can be done.

Why would centrists create liberal straw men?

It's those type of comments that I was referring to earlier. It's FOX news-like to create straw men from an imaginary extreme left. That's why it reads like one of their disclaimers.

[ohlovelyrita]

"Extreme left"? A word only used by people who lean right who want their religious views to be the law of the land. These people seem unable to think this problem through because they have religious programming stopping rational thought. They actually believe that most women are using abortion as birth control and if you are ready to have sex you are ready to be a parent.

I saw on the news today that India has 45 more million men than women. A serious problem due to aborting females.

"....abortion is practiced in Hindu culture in India, because the religious ban on abortion is sometimes overruled by the cultural preference for sons"

Well look at that! People are no longer religious when it doesn't suit them! These same people will get involved in other people's lives thinking they are being good religious people when actually they are being horrible fellow human beings by carelessly enacting policies that will do more harm than good.

And worse: "A woman in India dies every two hours because an abortion goes wrong. That seems like an extraordinary number until one visits the sorts of locations where abortions take place — where it can be seen that the possibility for something to go wrong is high indeed."

http://world.time.com/2013/07/19/world-population-focus-on-india-part-2-unsafe-abortions/#ixzz2ouY8IAs4

"One issue which consistently makes the difference between whether one considers themselves Liberal or Conservative, or whether they'll vote Republican or Democrat, is the issue of Choice when it comes to abortion. Those called "Pro-Life" simply state an absolute "no". They quote various verses from the Bible that affirm Life from the womb, and God's authority over us. (Isaiah 44, 49, Job 10, 31, Psalm 139, Amos 1:13, Romans 9:20, etc.) They are adamant about protecting the life of the fetus although they are less adamant about protecting other life since they tend to be against programs that would help the child after it's born, and usually are for capital punishment and for war.

Liberals, however, look at the issue differently. A Religious Liberal might begin with Scripture, and notice that there is nothing in the Bible about abortion unless one reads Number 5:12, which seems, on the surface, to make a pro-abortion statement. They'd put the verse into the context of its time, and move on.

They might then begin to think through the problem. Ideally, yes we'd want all children to be wanted, enough money to care for children, a family that loves each other. But this isn't always workable - no matter how much we want it.

A Liberal might then read statistics and notice that countries which forbid abortion seem to have a higher percentage of abortions, (read the breakdown of statistics in Freakanomics, for instance), and more women die when abortions aren't legal.

Conservatives might tell women that they should have a child and give the child up for adoption. But many women would reply, "I'll lose my job if I do that due to the possibility of frequent sickness and frequent absences from work. I don't have money nor health insurance for the doctor visits during pregnancy."

Some Conservatives might tell her, "You should have used birth control and been responsible so you should take responsibility for your actions." She might reply, "I did use birth control but it isn't 100% effective. And why should a baby, and/or a whole family be punished because of this pregnancy? Babies are not supposed to be punishment."

The discussion with the Conservative might end there, but the Liberal might continue to think about this. Some Liberals might ask an ethical question, "Is it better to do harm, or to do good?" If a policy does more harm than good, perhaps we shouldn't follow that policy.

Case in point this is out of control due to religion making people unreasonable: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-12-28/rest-of-world/45651505_1_abortion-supreme-court-argentina

[Ace Nova]

Care to show where anyone has said they want late term abortions? From what I've seen across several boards and many discussions is a consensus that there definitely needs to be a limit to how late abortions can be done.

Why would centrists create liberal straw men?

It's those type of comments that I was referring to earlier. It's FOX news-like to create straw men from an imaginary extreme left. That's why it reads like one of their disclaimers.

So if no one is in favor of late term abortions, why are still over 1000 of them performed LEGALLY n the U.S. each year??

Liberal straw men? Actually, I'm going by statistical facts. If no extreme liberals were in favor of late term abortions they surely would be non existent, no?

"Extreme left"? A word only used by people who lean right who want their religious views to be the law of the land. These people seem unable to think this problem through because they have religious programming stopping rational thought. They actually believe that most women are using abortion as birth control and if you are ready to have sex you are ready to be a parent.

I saw on the news today that India has 45 more million men than women. A serious problem due to aborting females.

"....abortion is practiced in Hindu culture in India, because the religious ban on abortion is sometimes overruled by the cultural preference for sons"

Well look at that! People are no longer religious when it doesn't suit them! These same people will get involved in other people's lives thinking they are being good religious people when actually they are being horrible fellow human beings by carelessly enacting policies that will do more harm than good.

And worse: "A woman in India dies every two hours because an abortion goes wrong. That seems like an extraordinary number until one visits the sorts of locations where abortions take place — where it can be seen that the possibility for something to go wrong is high indeed."

http://world.time.com/2013/07/19/world-population-focus-on-india-part-2-unsafe-abortions/#ixzz2ouY8IAs4

"One issue which consistently makes the difference between whether one considers themselves Liberal or Conservative, or whether they'll vote Republican or Democrat, is the issue of Choice when it comes to abortion. Those called "Pro-Life" simply state an absolute "no". They quote various verses from the Bible that affirm Life from the womb, and God's authority over us. (Isaiah 44, 49, Job 10, 31, Psalm 139, Amos 1:13, Romans 9:20, etc.) They are adamant about protecting the life of the fetus although they are less adamant about protecting other life since they tend to be against programs that would help the child after it's born, and usually are for capital punishment and for war.

Liberals, however, look at the issue differently. A Religious Liberal might begin with Scripture, and notice that there is nothing in the Bible about abortion unless one reads Number 5:12, which seems, on the surface, to make a pro-abortion statement. They'd put the verse into the context of its time, and move on.

They might then begin to think through the problem. Ideally, yes we'd want all children to be wanted, enough money to care for children, a family that loves each other. But this isn't always workable - no matter how much we want it.

A Liberal might then read statistics and notice that countries which forbid abortion seem to have a higher percentage of abortions, (read the breakdown of statistics in Freakanomics, for instance), and more women die when abortions aren't legal.

Conservatives might tell women that they should have a child and give the child up for adoption. But many women would reply, "I'll lose my job if I do that due to the possibility of frequent sickness and frequent absences from work. I don't have money nor health insurance for the doctor visits during pregnancy."

Some Conservatives might tell her, "You should have used birth control and been responsible so you should take responsibility for your actions." She might reply, "I did use birth control but it isn't 100% effective. And why should a baby, and/or a whole family be punished because of this pregnancy? Babies are not supposed to be punishment."

The discussion with the Conservative might end there, but the Liberal might continue to think about this. Some Liberals might ask an ethical question, "Is it better to do harm, or to do good?" If a policy does more harm than good, perhaps we shouldn't follow that policy.

Case in point this is out of control due to religion making people unreasonable: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-12-28/rest-of-world/45651505_1_abortion-supreme-court-argentina

[arnold layne]

LET US KILL ALL THE BABIES!

[ohlovelyrita]

Kasanova- Funny! You're a nice guy. I know you mean well but it sounds

like you might be using the rare cases of late-term abortions to

roll back women's rights. Would you vote against a women's right to choice?

I see that you might vote against a choice in later-term abortions.

I wouldn't for the reason that there are other ways to address it.

One way is some states require the patient to get 2 doctors approval.

I don't necessarily agree it should be law but this is fair.

"Ten states require a second physician to approve. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a requirement of "confirmation by two other physicians" (rather than one other physician) because "acquiescence by co-practitioners has no rational connection with a patient's needs and unduly infringes on the physician's right to practice".^[ Pro-choice organizations such as the Guttmacher Institute therefore interpret some of these state laws to be unconstitutional, based on these and other Supreme Court rulings, at least to the extent that these state laws require approval of a second or third physician"

[arnold layne]

This is why people suck.

Some asshole believes he has the authority to tell some lady she has to have the kid. No she fucking does it. Every time some dip-shit prolifer opens their mouth, they should adopt a kid, clothe them, and feed them for 18 years. Oh you don't want to do that? Well then maybe you should pay higher taxes so someone else in some orphanage feeds them and clothes them instead!

Fucking morons.

[Ace Nova]

Kasanova- Funny! You're a nice guy. I know you mean well but it sounds

like you might be using the rare cases of late-term abortions to

roll back women's rights. Would you vote against a women's right to choice?

I've already stated my stance on abortion in various threads...but if you must....

I'm personally against abortion....but on the other hand, I think women have free will to choose between right and wrong. If they choose to abort, it's wrong. But they have that option under the law.

Obviously, anyone who considers late term abortions a "woman's right" is no different than a sociopath.

This is why people suck.

Some asshole believes he has the authority to tell some lady she has to have the kid. No she fucking does it. Every time some dip-shit prolifer opens their mouth, they should adopt a kid, clothe them, and feed them for 18 years. Oh you don't want to do that? Well then maybe you should pay higher taxes so someone else in some orphanage feeds them and clothes them instead!

Fucking morons.

Children that are given up for adoption at birth NEVER end up in an orphanage, genius.....there's a waiting list of thousands of people just waiting for the chance to adopt a newborn baby.

Although I'm not against restricted "pro-choice"....your argument is borderline asinine.

[ohlovelyrita]

Kasanova- Funny! You're a nice guy. I know you mean well but it sounds

like you might be using the rare cases of late-term abortions to

roll back women's rights. Would you vote against a women's right to choice?

I've already stated my stance on abortion in various threads...but if you must....

I'm personally against abortion....but on the other hand, I think women have free will to choose between right and wrong. If they choose to abort, it's wrong. But they have that option under the law.

Obviously, anyone who considers late term abortions a "woman's right" is no different than a sociopath.

I think it would a horrible thing to do but it is done sometimes for the woman's health.

It might be worth looking into who these abortion doctors are and why they do it.

I bet a lot of them are trying to make a difference.

Acknowledging socially that woman have a choice -especially among women- is good but privately

would you vote against a woman's right to choose?

[arnold layne]

Kasanova- Funny! You're a nice guy. I know you mean well but it sounds

like you might be using the rare cases of late-term abortions to

roll back women's rights. Would you vote against a women's right to choice?

I've already stated my stance on abortion in various threads...but if you must....

I'm personally against abortion....but on the other hand, I think women have free will to choose between right and wrong. If they choose to abort, it's wrong. But they have that option under the law.

Obviously, anyone who considers late term abortions a "woman's right" is no different than a sociopath.

This is why people suck.

Some asshole believes he has the authority to tell some lady she has to have the kid. No she fucking does it. Every time some dip-shit prolifer opens their mouth, they should adopt a kid, clothe them, and feed them for 18 years. Oh you don't want to do that? Well then maybe you should pay higher taxes so someone else in some orphanage feeds them and clothes them instead!

Fucking morons.

Children that are given up for adoption at birth NEVER end up in an orphanage, genius.....there's a waiting list of thousands of people just waiting for the chance to adopt a newborn baby.

Although I'm not against restricted "pro-choice"....your argument is borderline asinine.

Let's not forget how painless and easy childbirth is too.

[Ace Nova]

I think it would a horrible thing to do but it is done sometimes for the woman's health.

It might be worth looking into who these abortion doctors are and why they do it.

I bet a lot of them are trying to make a difference.

Acknowledging socially that woman have a choice -especially among women- is good but privately

would you vote against a woman's right to choose?

I would vote to severely restrict abortions (other than if a woman's life is at risk) to the first trimester....and even then, she/they would have to go through counseling from both pro-choice and pro-life advocates beforehand....just so she/they completely understand the ramifications of her/their decision.

Let's not forget how painless and easy childbirth is too.

Actually (since I sat 6 inches away from my ex when she had my son) it's almost painless once they give her a simple shot. Technology is amazing.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Kasanova King

[ohlovelyrita]

Good point Arnold--- stay in the future lives of the life the pro-lifers are advocating for.

Okay Kasanova-- you didn't answer about how he'd vote. That is why religious people worry me.

At least, you sound sane overall! Hope so, for your boy!

[Ace Nova]

Good point Arnold--- stay in the future lives of the life the pro-lifers are advocating for.

Okay Kasanova-- you didn't answer about how he'd vote. That is why religious people worry me.

At least, you sound sane overall! Hope so, for your boy!

What? I outlined for you what I would tolerate.

[Ace Nova]

Come to think of it....I think I'm tired of appeasing the pro choice circle....

Other than if the life of the mother is at risk....(rape and incest maybe)....I think I'm leaning pro-life. Technology and the fact that hundreds of thousands of people are waiting to adopt....no....women (and men) shouldn't be allowed to use abortion as a form of birth control - which 90% of them are.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Kasanova King

[ohlovelyrita]

Good point Arnold--- stay in the future lives of the life the pro-lifers are advocating for.

Okay Kasanova-- you didn't answer about how he'd vote. That is why religious people worry me.

At least, you sound sane overall! Hope so, for your boy!

What? I outlined for you what I would tolerate.

Use the word "vote" which is an action not just an opinion --unless you don't want to say.

[Ace Nova]

Good point Arnold--- stay in the future lives of the life the pro-lifers are advocating for.

Okay Kasanova-- you didn't answer about how he'd vote. That is why religious people worry me.

At least, you sound sane overall! Hope so, for your boy!

What? I outlined for you what I would tolerate.

Use the word "vote" which is an action not just an opinion --unless you don't want to say.

More than likely, if it ever came to a vote, I'd vote pro-life....it's what I believe.