Washington Post give Planned Parenthood president's claims "Four Pinocchios"

[KolchakAU85 430]

9 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

You can only be right about a point of fact.  Your opinion on abortion, besides a baby being a fetus, is not factual.

And you aren't debating.  You're yelling like an old man shaking his fist at the sky.

Hey Brad, first and foremost, War Damn Eagle.

Aside from that, you're wrong.  I AM debating.  Not just shaking my fist.

At the least, killing an unborn fetus cheapens life.  At the most, it's premeditated murder.

But that's the attitude of many (if not most) people today: just be done with it in the most convenient way.  Kill it, with no responsibility.

Then get back to having unprotected sex with whoever.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

17 minutes ago, KolchakAU85 said:

Hey Brad, first and foremost, War Damn Eagle.

Aside from that, you're wrong.  I AM debating.  Not just shaking my fist.

At the least, killing an unborn fetus cheapens life.  At the most, it's premeditated murder.

But that's the attitude of many (if not most) people today: just be done with it in the most convenient way.  Kill it, with no responsibility.

Then get back to having unprotected sex with whoever.

War Damn Eagle as well.

I would contend that this is the first real debate post you've made in the thread because it actually articulates why you hold this position.  It's by far the best post I've seen you make here, despite the fact that I disagree with a large portion of it.

From my perspective, Nola wasn't wrong when he mentioned you were painting with too large of a brush.  To assume that it's a means of birth control only for most and then go back to having unprotected sex is unfounded.  I would simply ask: have you ever spoken to someone who has had an abortion and listened to their reasoning?  Listened to how it scarred them?  Listen to the feeling of guilt and shame?  I have and those feelings are real.  And every single person I've spoken with never made the mistake of an unwanted pregnancy again.

The other question we have to start asking if we are moving forward is when do we blame men for their part in this?  It's not like it's hard to put a condom on.  Trust me, if I can figure out how to do it, anyone can.  The complexities of this issue go far, far beyond just abortion is wrong or abortion if a woman's right.  But because we've allowed ourselves to devolve into an all or nothing argument, we have practically stopped trying to fix the root cause of the problem in the first place.

One last thing.  The current generation is actually better about having fewer abortions than older ones.  This graphic from NPR shows the decline.  Know what also coincides with that?  More sex education and better access to reliable birth control options for women.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/17/509734620/u-s-abortion-rate-falls-to-lowest-level-since-roe-v-wade

[Grumps 3,704]

43 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

But then you aren't really giving her control over her body if someone else gets to choose how a fetus is removed.  That's a pretty intrusive process and I would think a woman wanting an abortion would like to have a say in how the procedure is done, especially if she's paying for it.

First, I am not really sold on my plan, I just think it is an interesting idea. Second, the woman has the ability to have the unwanted mass of tissue removed from her body. Realistically, most people who have surgical procedures are pretty much just concerned with that. When I had my appendix removed I chose a surgeon I was comfortable with and let him do the procedure however he wanted to and let him do whatever he wanted to with the mass of tissue he removed from me. If the woman is paying for the procedure then I can see her having some added control.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

Just now, Grumps said:

First, I am not really sold on my plan, I just think it is an interesting idea. Second, the woman has the ability to have the unwanted mass of tissue removed from her body. Realistically, most people who have surgical procedures are pretty much just concerned with that. When I had my appendix removed I chose a surgeon I was comfortable with and let him do the procedure however he wanted to and let him do whatever he wanted to with the mass of tissue he removed from me. If the woman is paying for the procedure then I can see her having some added control.

Well it's not a totally apples to apples comparison.  Assuming your appendix burst, you're in a literal life or death situation if not taken care of quickly.  A woman would likely have time to choose and vet doctors thoroughly before an abortion as there is simply more time to do so.

On its face, the idea is interesting.  Just playing devil's advocate a little.

[KolchakAU85 430]

40 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

War Damn Eagle as well.

I would contend that this is the first real debate post you've made in the thread because it actually articulates why you hold this position.  It's by far the best post I've seen you make here, despite the fact that I disagree with a large portion of it.

From my perspective, Nola wasn't wrong when he mentioned you were painting with too large of a brush.  To assume that it's a means of birth control only for most and then go back to having unprotected sex is unfounded.  I would simply ask: have you ever spoken to someone who has had an abortion and listened to their reasoning?  Listened to how it scarred them?  Listen to the feeling of guilt and shame?  I have and those feelings are real.  And every single person I've spoken with never made the mistake of an unwanted pregnancy again.

The other question we have to start asking if we are moving forward is when do we blame men for their part in this?  It's not like it's hard to put a condom on.  Trust me, if I can figure out how to do it, anyone can.  The complexities of this issue go far, far beyond just abortion is wrong or abortion if a woman's right.  But because we've allowed ourselves to devolve into an all or nothing argument, we have practically stopped trying to fix the root cause of the problem in the first place.

One last thing.  The current generation is actually better about having fewer abortions than older ones.  This graphic from NPR shows the decline.  Know what also coincides with that?  More sex education and better access to reliable birth control options for women.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/17/509734620/u-s-abortion-rate-falls-to-lowest-level-since-roe-v-wade

Thanks for the articulate response.  You've given me some food for thought, and I'll considerate it.

WDE.

[aubiefifty 16,766]

11 hours ago, Grumps said:

First, I am not really sold on my plan, I just think it is an interesting idea. Second, the woman has the ability to have the unwanted mass of tissue removed from her body. Realistically, most people who have surgical procedures are pretty much just concerned with that. When I had my appendix removed I chose a surgeon I was comfortable with and let him do the procedure however he wanted to and let him do whatever he wanted to with the mass of tissue he removed from me. If the woman is paying for the procedure then I can see her having some added control.

are you saying docs can remove organs and sell or donate them to other folks? i mean besides abortion? i have never heard of that. honest. and not arguing just curious.

[aubiefifty 16,766]

i might have missed it because i did a fast scan or posts. but what about the man involved? two folks have a night of fun and she gets preggers then what about the rights of the father? it would seem he would have a say so. i never had kids and if i got a woman pregnant i would fight tooth and nail to keep my child alive. and what if she refused because even tho she does not want it she does not want to pay child support or help pay for college or anything. i just thought i would toss this in because you rarely if ever here much about the father.

[homersapien 11,367]

14 hours ago, KolchakAU85 said:

By reasonable implication.  You obviously overlooked it.  But I'll give you a pass, granted that you suck it up and be realistic from now on.  If you are open to it.

BS.  It's not there, period.

The constitution makes no mention of rights for people yet to be born. (It did however restrict the rights of many already born. )

But I love the irony of you - of all people - falling back on such a liberal interpretation of what the constitution says via implication.

[KolchakAU85 430]

The Constitution covers all people.  Born and unborn.  Accept it or be square.

[homersapien 11,367]

15 hours ago, KolchakAU85 said:

The Constitution covers all people.  Born and unborn.  Accept it or be square.

How about immigrants?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

How about immigrants?

Nope. Congress has plenary power over immigration. Of course, assuming by “immigrants” you mean immigration. 

[KolchakAU85 430]

8 hours ago, homersapien said:

How about immigrants?

I don't know for sure.

My first thought as a Christian is "What would Jesus do?".  I can't see Him turning them away.  Of course He wouldn't.  He'd welcome them with open arms.

But are we a sanctuary for the whole world's overflow of needy people?  I don't know.  I'm not qualified to answer.  I'm glad I don't have to make that decision.

There's no perfect answer to that.  Just like there's no perfect answer to the question of abortion, welfare, school teacher pay, etc.

[homersapien 11,367]

15 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Nope. Congress has plenary power over immigration. Of course, assuming by “immigrants” you mean immigration. 

The constitution applies to "immigrants".

[I_M4_AU 7,801]

On 7/12/2019 at 10:10 PM, KolchakAU85 said:

I don't know for sure.

My first thought as a Christian is "What would Jesus do?".  I can't see Him turning them away.  Of course He wouldn't.  He'd welcome them with open arms.

But are we a sanctuary for the whole world's overflow of needy people?  I don't know.  I'm not qualified to answer.  I'm glad I don't have to make that decision.

There's no perfect answer to that.  Just like there's no perfect answer to the question of abortion, welfare, school teacher pay, etc.

It’s interesting to me that those on the left love to spout “separation of church and state” with things such as abortion and prayers in school are the topic.  Yet when illegal immigration is concerned they love to pull at the heart strings of the Christian belief system to sway the popular opinion to their side.  They play that game very well.

You can’t have it both ways, can you?  We are a country of laws.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

The constitution applies to "immigrants".

If by immigrants you include those seeking admission, then that’s not an accurate statement.

[homersapien 11,367]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

If by immigrants you include those seeking admission, then that’s not an accurate statement.

Obviously, I am referring to legal, documented immigrants who reside in the US, citizens or not.  They are fully protected by the constitution except for citizenship specific issues such as the right to vote.

But even illegal (undocumented) immigrants have some basic constitutional rights, such as the right to due process.

https://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2017/mar/29/florida-immigrant-coalition/do-undocumented-immigrants-have-constitutional-rig/

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-constitutional-rights-do-undocumented-immigrants-have

 

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

17 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Obviously, I am referring to legal, documented immigrants who reside in the US, citizens or not.  They are fully protected by the constitution except for citizenship specific issues such as the right to vote.

But even illegal (undocumented) immigrants have some basic constitutional rights, such as the right to due process.

https://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2017/mar/29/florida-immigrant-coalition/do-undocumented-immigrants-have-constitutional-rig/

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-constitutional-rights-do-undocumented-immigrants-have

 

 

Undocumented immigrants’ due process rights are substantially restricted because Congress has plenary power over immigration. Speaking from first-hand representation in Immigration Court

[KolchakAU85 430]

10 hours ago, homersapien said:

The constitution applies to "immigrants".

Just curious homer, and not a loaded question at all: what would be your solution to the immigrant issue?

[homersapien 11,367]

15 hours ago, KolchakAU85 said:

Just curious homer, and not a loaded question at all: what would be your solution to the immigrant issue?

First, if you find yourself in a deep hole, take away the shovels.

We first need to replace Trump with a POTUS who won't demagogue the issue for personal political gain.  Trump has no interest in actually addressing the problem beyond using it to appeal to to his base.  Nothing positive is going to happen with Trump in office.

Afterword, we need a comprehensive immigration law that addresses the short term issue of dealing with the flux of refugees.  This means expanding our ability to handle the immediate cases of families seeking asylum, while treating them humanely.

Our country can absorb these refugees and create a path for them to become citizens.  They are appreciative and hard working. They will contribute to our economy. They make excellent prospects for citizens - probably better than the average, natural-born citizen.

Part of this new policy does need to address border security, which we need.  But our current policy of effectively restricting legal entry and refugee status application forces desperate people to cross illegally. 

Building a wall is not a magical technical solution any more than the Berlin wall was a solution for the East German communists.  It's a waste of money that would be better invested elsewhere.  The wall is nothing more than a political symbol. We can enforce border security without a huge physical wall. 

As a longer term measure to reduce the flood of refugees, we need to address the problems that are making these families so desperate to come here in the first place.

IMO, people don't leave their countries and walk to the US to simply improve their lot economically, they would prefer their lot be improved where they are.  But they cannot stay where they, their children and their livelihoods are being exploited by criminal elements and there is no rule of law to protect them. If a gang threatens to kill your children - are you know they will - you are willing to leave and take your chances.

Some of the terrible violence and lawlessness in their home countries has been propagated by the insatiable demand in the US for illegal drugs. We have an indirect responsibility for this.

In fact, revising drug policy should be another major component of this long term strategy of promoting democracy and rule of law in these countries.  Our "war on drugs" has created the conditions that have allowed drug traffickers to overpower or control the governments in these countries. We need to legalize drugs and regulate their use as a medical problem instead of a criminal one.  Take away the market for illegal drugs.

I am skeptical about nation building, but we certainly should be doing more to directly create and support governments in these countries that promote rule of law and justice. 

A modern equivalent of the Peace Corp would be helpful.  That would also provide an opportunity to young people for national service outside of the military forces.  It might even be a way for us to reemploy refugees who would return to their homeland to improve conditions.

Trump's tactics of cutting aid to these countries in order to "punish" them is absolutely the opposite of what we should be doing.  

And I wouldn't rule out military aid - or even as a last resort - intervention to effect regime change if necessary.  We've done it before when we perceived Communism as the existential threat. We need to stop worrying about the type of authoritarian tyranny and concern ourselves with the promotion of liberal democracies regardless of where they are starting from.

None of this would be cheap, but it's in our own long term interest to promote liberal democratic governments in this hemisphere and the world as a whole. 

Trump totally fails to understand the need for America to exert this sort of global leadership.  He wants to take us back to the early 20 century.  However you may feel about "globalism",  that sort of thinking will ensure environmental disaster and make another global war much more likely.  If it's not already too late.

So as policy, we should leverage our power to encourage a world that nourishes and values liberal democratic forms of government.  Whatever the costs, that would ultimately be to our own benefit.

 

 

[homersapien 11,367]

22 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Undocumented immigrants’ due process rights are substantially restricted because Congress has plenary power over immigration. Speaking from first-hand representation in Immigration Court

I am not arguing otherwise.

[homersapien 11,367]

On 7/13/2019 at 10:55 AM, I_M4_AU said:

It’s interesting to me that those on the left love to spout “separation of church and state” with things such as abortion and prayers in school are the topic.  Yet when illegal immigration is concerned they love to pull at the heart strings of the Christian belief system to sway the popular opinion to their side.  They play that game very well.

You can’t have it both ways, can you?  We are a country of laws.

If the laws or policies in question are not just - or even humane - any morally responsible citizen has a duty to oppose them regardless of religious belief.  That's the basis for every advance this country has made in the area of human rights since our founding.

What I see is a lot of support for inhumane policies by self-described "Christians" who seem perfectly willing to overlook it for the sake of perceived personal or national interests, not to mention their unqualified support for the immoral demagogue who promulgates such policies.

So it's the "Christian belief system" who is trying to have it both ways.

 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,801]

21 minutes ago, homersapien said:

If the laws or policies in question are not just - or even humane

This issue I see is; it is illegal to enter the U.S. and seek asylum anywhere other than a port of entry.  That is a just law of a sovereign country.  When people in Congress encourage breaking the law by creating policies that incentify aliens to overwhelm the system and use the situation to decry inhumane and unjust treatment is not being truthful.

It is also inhumane when that same Congress knows how to fix the problem, but refuses to do so.  

[homersapien 11,367]

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

This issue I see is; it is illegal to enter the U.S. and seek asylum anywhere other than a port of entry.  That is a just law of a sovereign country.  When people in Congress encourage breaking the law by creating policies that incentify aliens to overwhelm the system and use the situation to decry inhumane and unjust treatment is not being truthful.

It is also inhumane when that same Congress knows how to fix the problem, but refuses to do so.  

But the fact on the ground is these people cannot get through at legal ports of entry.  It's logistically impossible. So, the reality is they are forced to enter illegally or face the consequences for themselves and their children, which realistically include death. 

What would you do?

I agree we shouldn't incentivize them to cross illegally, but the proper response to that is to provide them a realistic chance to enter legally, not to simply declare them outlaws and throw them back to their fate.

Avoiding to address a real problem by rephrasing it into an abstract, legal one is immoral in this case.

And there have been several Congressional efforts to address the problem.  Although consensus was elusive within all interested groups the efforts were  stymied most frequently by Republicans. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/01/30/how-immigration-reform-failed-over-and-over/?utm_term=.471269838dd9

https://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/how-immigration-reform-died-108374

[I_M4_AU 7,801]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

But the fact on the ground is these people cannot get through at legal ports of entry.  It's logistically impossible. So, the reality is they are forced to enter illegally or face the consequences for themselves and their children, which realistically include death. 

What would you do?

I agree we shouldn't incentivize them to cross illegally, but the proper response to that is to provide them a realistic chance to enter legally, not to simply declare them outlaws and throw them back to their fate.

Avoiding to address a real problem by rephrasing it into an abstract, legal one is immoral in this case.

And there have been several Congressional efforts to address the problem.  Although consensus was elusive within all interested groups the efforts were  stymied most frequently by Republicans. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/01/30/how-immigration-reform-failed-over-and-over/?utm_term=.471269838dd9

https://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/how-immigration-reform-died-108374

Who is forcing them to enter illegally?  If they can’t get through the port of entry that is not the fault of the U.S..  Congress has put a priority for aliens with children and now you see a rise in *families* with children (whether theirs or not) coming across the border.  The law of unintended consequences.

This problem goes back decades, this administration is trying to arrive at a solution and is behind the power curve.  The problem will take a while to fix.  The flow has to slow down and maybe, with the help of Mexico, it will this summer and we can get ahead of the problem.  This lull could be the time to get things done in Congress, but the rush to win in 2020 could prevent this from happening.

Interesting that the articles you linked are from the Obama era and stymied by Republicans.  What do you want to bet any reform now will be stymied by Democrats?  The aliens seeking asylum will be the most affected.

It is sad and needs to be addressed.  I hope for the best in solving the issue.

[homersapien 11,367]

18 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Who is forcing them to enter illegally?  If they can’t get through the port of entry that is not the fault of the U.S..  Congress has put a priority for aliens with children and now you see a rise in *families* with children (whether theirs or not) coming across the border.  The law of unintended consequences.

This problem goes back decades, this administration is trying to arrive at a solution and is behind the power curve.  The problem will take a while to fix.  The flow has to slow down and maybe, with the help of Mexico, it will this summer and we can get ahead of the problem.  This lull could be the time to get things done in Congress, but the rush to win in 2020 could prevent this from happening.

Interesting that the articles you linked are from the Obama era and stymied by Republicans.  What do you want to bet any reform now will be stymied by Democrats?  The aliens seeking asylum will be the most affected.

It is sad and needs to be addressed.  I hope for the best in solving the issue.

Trump is not trying to arrive at a solution.  He is using this politically to jack up his base - that's what "THE WALL" was all about.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-trump-administration-should-fight-graft-and-impunity-in-guatemala-its-doing-the-opposite/2019/07/14/26f8e8be-a418-11e9-bd56-eac6bb02d01d_story.html?utm_term=.3ca2ca48f426

The Trump administration should fight graft and impunity in Guatemala. It’s doing the opposite.

IN THE recent crush of Central American asylum seekers pouring over the United States’ southern border, no country has been the source of more migrants than Guatemala, where poverty and misrule are aggravated by stunningly pervasive corruption. That would suggest the Trump administration, in its crusade to deter migration, would intensify efforts to fight graft and impunity there. In fact, it is doing the opposite.

For a decade before President Trump entered office, the United States provided critical diplomatic and financial backing to an extraordinarily effective anticorruption commission that prosecuted hundreds of Guatemalan lawmakers, officials and others involved in dozens of criminal schemes and networks. The International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala, supervised by the United Nations, had a key strategic ally in Thelma Aldana, an anticorruption crusader who, as the nation’s attorney general from 2014 to 2018, launched a devastating frontal assault against entrenched elites who had enriched themselves for decades without consequence; she sent some 250 to jail. Among those she accused were a former president, Otto Pérez Molina, who resigned in disgrace, and the current president, Jimmy Morales, who has denied wrongdoing.

The campaign to clean up Guatemala earned the commission and Ms. Aldana powerful enemies who feared not just prison time but an end to long-standing business as usual — kickbacks, payoffs and sweetheart deals for the well-connected. Those enemies were kept at bay with the help of friendly judges and diplomatic cover. Then Mr. Trump took office.

Over the objections of career diplomats, political appointees from the Trump administration sided with Guatemalan corporate and political figures who argued, preposterously, that the anticorruption commission was an affront to the nation’s sovereignty. (In fact, many of its investigators are Guatemalan and it enjoys broad popular support.) When Mr. Morales announced last summer that the commission would be abolished in a year, Washington barely objected.

That set the stage for a counterattack targeting Ms. Aldana, who was disqualified as a candidate in Guatemala’s presidential elections this spring when an array of charges — some flimsy, others spurious — were brought against her. Not coincidentally, she was the only leading candidate who had given full-throated backing to the anticorruption commission.

Now, the commission appears doomed, and with it the country’s hopes of rolling back rampant graft. Ms. Aldana, facing death threats at home, has fled to the United States, where she applied for asylum this month. And Mr. Morales, emboldened, is reportedly negotiating a “safe third country” pact that would force Salvadoran and Honduran migrants, who transit Guatemala on their way north, to seek asylum there instead of the United States — a move that would put them at risk given Guatemala’s poor human rights record.

In Guatemala, rumors are rife that Ms. Aldana might be arrested by U.S. immigration agents and deported back to her home country. That would be a grave mistake. Three years ago, when she was honored with the State Department’s annual International Women of Courage award, then-Secretary of State John F. Kerry lauded her as “fearless” in prosecuting corruption and pushing reforms. She, like efforts to establish the rule of law in Guatemala, needs and deserves the United States’ protection and support.