Biden reverses position on federal funding for abortion

[Trouble]

I generally have never had a problem with the Roe vs. Wade decision and I am sorry to see that the right and left have gone bonkers over abortion this election season.  Notice how it never seems to have been much of an issue except during election season.  Now it's a constant barrage of news on the issue. I don't like the fact that Biden and other politicians flip flop so easily depending on where they can get votes. It seems like most have no moral or ethical compass of their own.  It's all about the votes and where they think they can appeal to some base.  The big problem I have with the abortion issue is why anyone thinks is a right to have an abortion and that the taxpayers should fund it.  Seems like the taxpayers are always paying for mistakes that low IQ people make.  They have a morning after pill these days, contraceptives, pills and still people are having sex without any protection and subsequently pregnancies.  The woman then can't make up her mind and we now have to enter into another controversy over late term abortions and the left wants free abortions.  Should it be that taxpayers problem at all?  

[lannarebirth]

7 hours ago, rudi49jr said:

Couldn’t agree more. Plus these anti-abortion people always keep banging on about the sanctity of life, but are almost always great advocates of the death penalty as well.

 

Funny that, too. 

You don't think someone can be against both? To be for just one or the either would be hypocrisy from both sides, don't you think? Not to mention supporting discretionary wars. 

[lannarebirth]

8 minutes ago, oilinki said:

I can. I'm pro freedom of women and also men to choose whether they wish to bring a child to this world or not.

 

 

I'm not sure what that means. Are you suggesting men can impose their choice not to have a child on a woman they've impregnated?

 

Anyhow, it's not a religious issue for me, as I'm an atheist. Killing your offspring coarsens a culture, the death penalty and access to excessive weaponry coarsens a culture. I'm against that, and in the case of abortion I'd certainly make allowances for rape, incest, or mother's health,

[lannarebirth]

13 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Pretty much so. 

 

I'm saying that men should also be able to veto to not to have a child. 

 

 

Well, your wishes are even less likely to come true than mine.

[mogandave]

I guess so, for now. I hope things will change.
 
I have been in the situation when 'morning after' rather hefty dose of e-pills was requires. She told me, in no uncertain terms, that if she was still going to have a child, she would keep it.
 
I was young, all the life ahead of me. 
 
That was her decision, not mine. By that decision, our future together was already non existent. I never wanted a child. 
 
If she would give a birth to a child, should I rescue my own life and flee like an wheasel? Or should I destroy my future by staying with her and with the child?
 
I'm happy I didn't have to make the choice at the time. I do hope others don't have to make the choice either. 

To bring a child to this world, should be a content decision by both future parents. It's a big commitment, which should not be taken lightly. 

But having indiscriminate unprotected sex with arbitrary partners should be taking lightly.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, mogandave said:

 

But having indiscriminate unprotected sex with arbitrary partners should be taking lightly.

 

You want the nanny state to punish people for what they do in their bedrooms?

[mogandave]

You want the nanny state to punish people for what they do in their bedrooms?

Absolutely not, but neither do I think the “nanny state” (I.e. progressive state) should reward “...people for what they do in their bedrooms...” which is what providing funding does.

Does not staying out of our bedrooms include not funding/promoting what some do in their bedrooms?

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Absolutely not, but neither do I think the “nanny state” (I.e. progressive state) should reward “...people for what they do in their bedrooms...” which is what providing funding does.

Does not staying out of our bedrooms include not funding/promoting what some do in their bedrooms?

 

Good idea. The government should absolutely stay out of family planning and HIV prevention and treatment. The US needs the number of teen pregnancies to rise again and venereal diseases to flourish. What you don't seem to get is that there's a difference between coercion and assistance. 

[Cryingdick]

Not good for Biden. This is used against him in there primary and obviously in the wider election. The dems aren't satisfied to elect Biden a moderate, who might win. They need blood and this is why they will lose bigly. Maybe they should settle for something other than Trump before going for the jugular.

[mogandave]

Good idea. The government should absolutely stay out of family planning and HIV prevention and treatment. The US needs the number of teen pregnancies to rise again and venereal diseases to flourish. What you don't seem to get is that there's a difference between coercion and assistance. 

 

That what I thought, you love the nanny state (I.e. progressive) state to do things you like, but hate when they do something you don’t like.

 

You want rights without responsibilities, correct?

 

 

In any event, the topic is Biden flipping.

 

With this, the latest plagiarism chargers and his latest gaffs I think it safe to say we can stick a fork in old Joe...

[Cryingdick]

4 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

That what I thought, you love the nanny state (I.e. progressive) state to do things you like, but hate when they do something you don’t like.

You want rights without responsibilities, correct?
 

 

 

He just wants to dictate yo you what to do and have you pay for it even if you vehemently disagree which is what Hyde thing is all about. Mandating people that think abortion is murder to pay for It is the bread and butter of the dems.

[bristolboy]

9 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

He just wants to dictate yo you what to do and have you pay for it even if you vehemently disagree which is what Hyde thing is all about. Mandating people that think abortion is murder to pay for It is the bread and butter of the dems.

I get it. That's how laws in the United States should be judged. If a large group of people are offended by it, then it's wrong. Like the laws outlawing segregation.

[Cryingdick]

5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I get it. That's how laws in the United States should be judged. If a large group of people are offended by it, then it's wrong. Like the laws outlawing segregation.

 

I am in complete agreement.

[bristolboy]

5 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

I am in complete agreement.

Not surprised.

[mogandave]

I get it. That's how laws in the United States should be judged. If a large group of people are offended by it, then it's wrong. Like the laws outlawing segregation.

I think you are confusing rights with laws.

I think it fair to say “...a large group of people are offended...” by any number of things that aren’t wrong, and laws that interfere with rights are unconstitutional, that why Republicans fought for civil rights while Democrats were still supporting Jim Crow laws.

We seem to be getting off topic, let’s get back to Joe Biden flipping four times in two days..

[bristolboy]

10 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

I think you are confusing rights with laws.

I think it fair to say “...a large group of people are offended...” by any number of things that aren’t wrong, and laws that interfere with rights are unconstitutional, that why Republicans fought for civil rights while Democrats were still supporting Jim Crow laws.

We seem to be getting off topic, let’s get back to Joe Biden flipping four times in two days..

 

Can't let you get away with your lie about Republicans fighting for civil rights laws. Nonsense.

And what do you mean by "confusing rights with laws"?

[mogandave]

Can't let you get away with your lie about Republicans fighting for civil rights laws. Nonsense.

Hilarious

[bristolboy]

Just now, mogandave said:

 

Hilarious

 

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ended segregation in public places and banned employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, is considered one of the crowning legislative achievements of the civil rights movement. First proposed by President John F. Kennedy, it survived strong opposition from southern members of Congress and was then signed into law by Kennedy’s successor, Lyndon B. Johnson. In subsequent years, Congress expanded the act and passed additional civil rights legislation such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965."

https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/civil-rights-act

And you know what happened after that law was passed. Barry Goldwater, the Republican candidate for President who voted against the law, carried the entire south except for Texas.

[lannarebirth]

7 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ended segregation in public places and banned employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, is considered one of the crowning legislative achievements of the civil rights movement. First proposed by President John F. Kennedy, it survived strong opposition from southern members of Congress and was then signed into law by Kennedy’s successor, Lyndon B. Johnson. In subsequent years, Congress expanded the act and passed additional civil rights legislation such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965."

https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/civil-rights-act

And you know what happened after that law was passed. Barry Goldwater, the Republican candidate for President who voted against the law, carried the entire south except for Texas.

https://www.countable.us/articles/17557-fact-check-republicans-voted-civil-rights-act-percentage-democrats-did

[bristolboy]

5 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

https://www.countable.us/articles/17557-fact-check-republicans-voted-civil-rights-act-percentage-democrats-did

So, tell me, if the Republicans had abstained would the civil right bill have failed? Would it have passed by a small majority? In fact, on both sides of the aisle there was an overwhelming majority. So, what exactly is your point? 

Do you deny that the Republicans successfully took advantage of southern white resentment after the passage of the civil right bill? Ever hear of Nixon's southern strategy?

[lannarebirth]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

So, tell me, if the Republicans had abstained would the civil right bill have failed? Would it have passed by a small majority? In fact, on both sides of the aisle there was an overwhelming majority. So, what exactly is your point? 

 

My point is that the person you were responding to was largely correct but you presented your rebuttal as if he was lying, which he was not.

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

My point is that the person you were responding to was largely correct but you presented your rebuttal as if he was lying, which he was not.

You think this is largely correct?

"that why Republicans fought for civil rights while Democrats were still supporting Jim Crow laws."

Give me some examples of Republicans fighting for civil rights. When did they push to overthrow Jim Crow laws?

[lannarebirth]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

You think this is largely correct?

"that why Republicans fought for civil rights while Democrats were still supporting Jim Crow laws."

Give me some examples of Republicans fighting for civil rights. When did they push to overthrow Jim Crow laws?

The fact that Republicans tended to govern in states where there were no Jim Crow laws and Democrats tended to govern in states where there still were those laws should be example enough. You know this. It's history now and the World has changed and the parties have changed.

 

Anyway, how's Joe doing in the latest polls? Maybe some more of that big corporate money should be coming in about now.

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

The fact that Republicans tended to govern in states where there were no Jim Crow laws and Democrats tended to govern in states where there still were those laws should be example enough. You know this. It's history now and the World has changed and the parties have changed.

 

Anyway, how's Joe doing in the latest polls? Maybe some more of that big corporate money should be coming in about now.

Nonsense. Your statement carefully elides the reality that while it was in the South that Democrats had a lock on governance, they had plenty of representation elsewhere too, As the fact that a vast majority of Democrats in both the House and Senate voted to pass the Civil Right bill. And you still haven't shown any evidence that Republicans actively and independently pushed for the abolition of Jim Crow laws. None of the evidence you have produced, feeble though it is, has in any way backed this assertion:

"that why Republicans fought for civil rights while Democrats were still supporting Jim Crow laws."

And the reason for that is it's false.

 

[mogandave]

Nonsense. Your statement carefully elides the reality that while it was in the South that Democrats had a lock on governance, they had plenty of representation elsewhere too, As the fact that a vast majority of Democrats in both the House and Senate voted to pass the Civil Right bill. And you still haven't shown any evidence that Republicans actively and independently pushed for the abolition of Jim Crow laws. None of the evidence you have produced, feeble though it is, has in any way backed this assertion:
"that why Republicans fought for civil rights while Democrats were still supporting Jim Crow laws."
And the reason for that is it's false.
 

You do know more Rs voted for it than Ds in both numbers and percentages, yes?

Goldwater supported the bill, he did not support affirmative action as it is unconstitutional.

You guys crack me up

[lannarebirth]

8 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Nonsense. Your statement carefully elides the reality that while it was in the South that Democrats had a lock on governance, they had plenty of representation elsewhere too, As the fact that a vast majority of Democrats in both the House and Senate voted to pass the Civil Right bill. And you still haven't shown any evidence that Republicans actively and independently pushed for the abolition of Jim Crow laws. None of the evidence you have produced, feeble though it is, has in any way backed this assertion:

"that why Republicans fought for civil rights while Democrats were still supporting Jim Crow laws."

And the reason for that is it's false.

 

Stop digging man. It's historical fact now. But as I said, the World and American politics has changed since then.

 

Quote

 

2. A fiscal conservative became an unsung hero in helping the Act pass

Ohio's Republican Rep. William McCulloch had a conservative track record -- he opposed foreign and federal education aid and supported gun rights and school prayer. His district (the same one now represented by House Speaker John Boehner) had a small African-American population. So he had little to gain politically by supporting the Civil Rights Act.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2014/04/10/politics/civil-rights-act-interesting-facts/index.html

 

 

[bristolboy]

Just now, mogandave said:

 

You do know more Rs voted for it than Ds in both numbers and percentages, yes?

Goldwater supported the bill, he did not support affirmative action as it is unconstitutional.

You guys crack me up

 

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're just ignorant and not being a troll.

.Although he had supported earlier civil rights legislation, he notably opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as he believed it to be an overreach by the federal government. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater

And there is nothing in the 1964 Civil Rights Act about affirmative action.

[Thakkar]

11 hours ago, Credo said:

Despite a personal opinion on the matter, I do not believe I should chose for others.   I suspect for most people it is an agonizing decision.   

 

This is the crux of the matter. So-called “supporters” of abortion are, to a person, really supporters of staying out of an individual woman’s business of deciding what to do with her own body.

 

The so-called “pro-life” agenda is not so much “to protect vulnerable, defenseless children” as to assert control over women’s bodies. We know this because there are plenty of vulnerable defenseless living, breathing children that these same people absolutely refuse to protect, and, on occasion, actively support the harming of.

[mogandave]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're just ignorant and not being a troll.
.Although he had supported earlier civil rights legislation, he notably opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as he believed it to be an overreach by the federal government. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater
And there is nothing in the 1964 Civil Rights Act about affirmative action.

So did you check on how many more Republicans voted for it than Democrats?

That was back before the parties magically changed sides...

[bristolboy]

 

Wow! One conservative congressman's help proves that 

 

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

The fact that Republicans tended to govern in states where there were no Jim Crow laws and Democrats tended to govern in states where there still were those laws should be example enough. You know this. It's history now and the World has changed and the parties have changed.

 

In 1964 elections democrats held governorships in 34 states. The Republicans in 16.  It took me about 1 minute to dig up this fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_United_States_gubernatorial_elections

Why do you insist on just posting based on your beliefs when evidence is so easily availabl?