Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-23-2017, 01:35 PM
 
Location: Meggett, SC
11,011 posts, read 10,986,291 times
Reputation: 6191

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie53 View Post
Yea, I guess you did. He made it a point, MANY times, that he intends to appoint a pro-life justice to the Supreme Court with the intent of overturning Roe v Wade.


I wasn't speaking of men vs woman in regards to high and low paying jobs.


I was speaking to the FACT that there are men and women who do not have the ability to attain a college degree or learn a SKILLED trade.


I cannot think of one high paying SKILLED trade that doesn't require a proficiency in math.....something not everyone is capable of.
Yeah, unless you think the collective American workforce has somehow lost massive IQ points over the last few years, those skilled trades jobs are still a viable option for many of these people who cannot go to college. I think you're overestimating the number of people who would be unable to be successful in either college or the skilled trades - massively. So basically your solution, instead of investing in things like skilled trade is to what? Continue to increase welfare? Continue to increase social services? Because we cannot afford to do so anymore. This isn't an issue of policy, it's an issue of basic math. We can't afford it - it's unsustainable. We need to provide something other than welfare to those who cannot go to college. A fast food job isn't it. If Trump can't increase manufacturing, if he can't increased skilled trades jobs, then fine, he's failed. But good god, at least he wants to try. No one else has - Obama certainly didn't. Instead he lauded the creation of poorly paying service industry jobs and called it a great day for America. Nah, I would prefer to see our men and women have jobs/careers which aren't normally the type of jobs 16 years old get as their first job.

As to Roe v. Wade and the justice he would appoint. He would be replacing a justice who was staunchly pro-life so the balance of the court will not change. Will in the future? Likely but justices have a pretty strong history of not completely changing long held decisions. Tweak them, sure, but complete reversal? Happens rarely. Honestly, I think he's not even remotely pro-life but is giving lip service to it so he can get his agenda passed through Congress in the first 100 days. But again, we'll see.

Oh and it means women still haven't lost any rights. You're just guessing you might - but as someone once said "elections have consequences."

 
Old 01-23-2017, 01:43 PM
 
Location: Meggett, SC
11,011 posts, read 10,986,291 times
Reputation: 6191
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
The rates would have gone up faster without the ACA. What will probably happen with the new administration is that rates will drop on young healthy people and go up dramatically for older, sicker people. There will be caps on annual and lifetime limits and insurers will have the ability to cancel people without cause and deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. The only other way to lower rates is to cap fees paid to providers and that is certainly not something Tom Price would advocate for given how much money he has received from doctors and hospitals
I hear this claim bandied about time and again yet when I look for evidence of this claim, I find the opposite. Healthcare premiums are rising exponentially faster with Obamacare than it did without it. At first, there wasn't much change but when the provisions for Obamacare really started kicking in, it went up and up a lot. Of course, those delayed regulations weren't exactly on accident either because they knew this would happen.

Health care costs rise by most in 32 years - Sep. 16, 2016
 
Old 01-23-2017, 01:44 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,758 posts, read 26,029,946 times
Reputation: 33870
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
No but I think the billing of it was the issue. It was advertised as a march to "protect women's rights." So perhaps it was simply advertised incorrectly. If it was just an anti-Trump protest, they should have just said so.
There wasn't really any "billing" of it, it was very organic.

Not everyone has the same issues, but that does not make their concerns invalid. The Tea Party was never organized around a 'single issue' there were Tea Party people who were pro-life, anti-immigrant, anti-LGBT rights, anti-spending, anti-big government but I don't recall people using the fact that they represented individuals with different concerns as being a reason to criticize them.
 
Old 01-23-2017, 01:51 PM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
77,772 posts, read 104,356,591 times
Reputation: 49248
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays25 View Post
There's that, plus having an avowed woman-molester in office is pretty bizarre.
Clinton has been gone for 15 years
 
Old 01-23-2017, 01:57 PM
 
Location: Ohio
15,701 posts, read 16,989,924 times
Reputation: 22090
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
Many supporters of continued funding of Planned Parenthood use PP themselves as a source for facts. Clearly they too are a biased source.

I'm not really sure what you think my point was, but clearly you missed it. The thread asked the question, "What rights are women losing?" My answer is abortion and abortion rights. PP tries to claim that abortion plays an incredibly minor role in their operations and services. The video debunks that claim. We can fully anticipate that the ACA will be repealed and replaced and that PP will lose all federal funding before the end of the year -- probably before the end of the next month. A new pro-life Supreme Court Justice will also be confirmed in that same timeframe. That's not even me taking a side, it's just facts.

The video does not debunk that claim and I told you why.


Abortion services are 3% of PP's total services rendered, fuzzy math doesn't change that.


Try unbiased sources like the CDC, the Guttmacher Inst., WHO instead of something like "Students for Life".
 
Old 01-23-2017, 01:58 PM
 
Location: Meggett, SC
11,011 posts, read 10,986,291 times
Reputation: 6191
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
There wasn't really any "billing" of it, it was very organic.

Not everyone has the same issues, but that does not make their concerns invalid. The Tea Party was never organized around a 'single issue' there were Tea Party people who were pro-life, anti-immigrant, anti-LGBT rights, anti-spending, anti-big government but I don't recall people using the fact that they represented individuals with different concerns as being a reason to criticize them.
Ah, well everything I read about the women's march billed it as a women's rights march and basing on this thread, I don't think I was alone in this.
 
Old 01-23-2017, 02:04 PM
 
Location: Chicago Area
12,687 posts, read 6,702,186 times
Reputation: 6593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonyafd View Post
The Supreme Court decided in 1973 that abortion was lawful. According to the Right abortion rights can be reversed. They are already closing clinics in many right wing states to the point where a woman must leave the state to end a pregnancy.

We men are great at convincing women that they will see the second coming of Christ if they say yes. It's also men who are at the forefront of the anti abortion movement for some reason and at the back of the line for child support.
It's a simple matter of supply and demand. If an abortion clinic can't survive in any given town or city, it closes. If this means that a woman has to leave the state to get an abortion then that's just economics at work. At present, nobody has the right to close an abortion clinic by legislation. Federal courts will stop them every single time. But federal funding going to such clinics can and will be cut.

Trump will likely appoint many pro-life federal judges including one Supreme Court justice within the next month. This should surprise nobody. It's a divisive issue. I just don't believe that the Supreme Court had any business weighing in on the matter. The SCOTUS can't be bothered to stop our government from spying on all of us, but abortion is a sacrosanct human right based on the right to privacy. How does that make any sense?? Like any other law defining what is morally acceptable (like murder, theft, assault, rape, etc) abortion should have been left in the hands of local and state governments.

Both men and women certain need to be more responsible about engaging in the act of human reproduction and stop being so shocked, dismayed and surprised when the act of human reproduction succeeds. If you willingly participate, you might just make a baby. I don't comprehend why the Supreme Court would have ever concluded that taking the coward's way out for either parent was a Constitutional right.
 
Old 01-23-2017, 02:09 PM
 
Location: Ohio
15,701 posts, read 16,989,924 times
Reputation: 22090
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
Hold on now. PP is supposed to be about women's health. Wouldn't pregnancy be in the realm of women's health? Perhaps I missed your point. And why wouldn't PP also advocate adoption and help women who want to go that route instead? They are missing an opportunity to help women there. But that would go to the heart of what PP is about, right? Is it really about being an abortion provider with other women's services tacked on to gain federal funding or is it primarily a clinic for women's health that also provides abortions? If the latter, they should and would welcome connecting women with unwanted pregnancies with adoption options as well.

Why would a woman who is planning to go the adoption route go to PP first and foremost?


The answer. Most of them don't...... but PP will redirect those that do. Why is that a problem?


You seem to think PP should try to talk women out of aborting.....that isn't their job.


Their job is to present options, not advocate for one option over another.


Here are your options: A, B or C. Not, you should choose A over B because.....
 
Old 01-23-2017, 02:13 PM
 
Location: Meggett, SC
11,011 posts, read 10,986,291 times
Reputation: 6191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie53 View Post
Why would a woman who is planning to go the adoption route go to PP first and foremost?


The answer. Most of them don't...... but PP will redirect those that do. Why is that a problem?


You seem to think PP should try to talk women out of aborting.....that isn't their job.


Their job is to present options, not advocate for one option over another.


Here are your options: A, B or C. Not, you should choose A over B because.....
I just think it would alleviate some political pressure off them if they also were strong advocates for pregnancy care as well as offering help connecting with adoption providers when they want to do so. But that's neither her nor there as they don't and as such should wrap their heads around the idea they will need to fund raise to replace federal dollars. They have plenty of supporters so it shouldn't be a problem. But federal funding of PP is not a right and never was. Best of luck to them in the future.
 
Old 01-23-2017, 02:21 PM
 
27,307 posts, read 16,156,650 times
Reputation: 12100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie53 View Post
Not so cheap, especially for the working poor who do not qualify for Medicaid.


By the time you pay for the office call, the pap smear and lab costs.....you are looking at hundreds of dollars.


Even with insurance it cost me $95......a substantial amount of money for someone living paycheck to paycheck.


What? Go to a PP?......can't.....they closed.


What? Use your ACA insurance?.....can't.....it was cancelled.


What? Use your health savings account?......who has extra money laying around to put in a HSA?


Only $20 a month? Let's see, if it comes to paying the rent/electric bill or buying BC, guess which one is going to get paid for and which isn't?


That's how it works in the real world, like it or not.


No worries though, when the working poor end up with an unplanned pregnancy.....all kinds of free stuff kicks in, healthcare, food stamps, subsidized housing, welfare. It's all good.
PP closes. How is that losing a right?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top