Mississippi's 'Personhood' Law Could Outlaw Birth Control

[treemom]

Here ya go Jericho.

viewtopic.php?p=76721#p76721

[Constance Vigilance]

P.S. Constance Vigilance I love your username. HP reference? (If not, I don't actually like it, jk)

Boogalou, 98% of my life is a HP reference. :D

[treemom]

At least nobody here loses their house because they can't afford to pay for medical treatment AND a mortgage.

As one of probably only a few people on the board who have been treated at the ER of both an American Hospital and a Canadian Hospital within 6 months of each other for the same thing...

Well I gotta say, the full cost of the Canadian care was half the cost of my out of pocket expenses and I was treated well.

[Lainey]

The thing is, living in the most conservative province in Canada, I've heard all these arguments for smaller government and privatization. I used to buy into them, when I was young and foolish. But then I started to see something that was troubling: services and institutions got worse when they were privatized. There are still people who, like Jericho here, are all for privatization...and I really don't understand why. Of course, these are people who, like Jericho, are on the other side of the poverty line, and think it's as simple as everyone just not being lazy and getting off their asses to go to work. Except, again, real life and real people are messy, and don't fit into the neat little boxes certain people would like to lay out for them.

There are people here who fight against the privatization of our health care system. I'm glad for them. SO glad. I would never want to live in the States, solely because of your horrendous health care system. The thing is, Jericho, I know you think you're right that privatization is better. But you're wrong. I've seen it. Frankly, the government can do some things better. And yes, some people do have to be forced to help their fellow citizens through taxes. They benefit from it, too, though.

[formergothardite]

I'm ready to do my part for America! USA, USA!

I'm wondering what people like Jericho would say if part of my bootstraps plan for making money while I look for a full-time position included becoming a stripper. Because if I had the body, I absolutely would.

So would I. Pays pretty well. Alas, they don't want short, fat strippers who can't dance.

[jericho]

So these children deserve to learn these principles by working in a factory? I am having a hard time following your train of thought.

I work, honey. Full time. My husband worked as well until he lost his job. He is looking for one in between full time classes.

This is what "pulling yourself up by the bootstraps" looks like in real life: If I were not in subsidized housing, my checks would not be enough to pay rent. If not for food stamps, WIC and school lunches, my children would go to bed hungry. If we did not have Medicaid, my kids would be dead from preventable illness. If we did not have public schools, my kids would not get much of an education. That is the reality of pulling oneself up by the bootstraps: it takes a long, long time. Without government services, it's long enough for a poor child to die of hunger or exposure or preventable disease. Like they routinely did one hundred years ago, when the government let private charities handle these things.

You are a giant hypocrite if you are pro-life but oppose government social services. You are basically saying that children only matter before they are born.

edited to finish a sentence.

I am pro-life and I'm not against social services. I simply think they and most things can be done better in the free market rather than by the government.

[emmiedahl]

You think that even though the free market social services did not work in the several millennia before welfare?

[debrand]

I'm flabbergasted that anyone would think that the early 20th century was better for those who were poor. Jericho, have you really thought through what you are claiming? Maybe(I hope) You haven't read a lot about life in the early twentieth century for the poor.

[Cassandra]

So would I. Pays pretty well. Alas, they don't want short, fat strippers who can't dance.

I've thought about it....I work as a waitress in a 4 star businessman-y restaurant and stripping is pretty much the same thing: pandering to middle aged men for some extra cash. Except with stripping I'd make more money and I wouldn't get germy food all over me.

[jericho]

Well you haven't exactly been able to produce a period in time where private programs took care of all the poor in a better manner than today.

Before the great depression. After the depression the new deal came along to help. Instead of being temporary, government programs got bigger and bigger and continue to grow even today.

[emmiedahl]

Before the Great Depression? Have you read Dickens?

I was reading that in the nineteenth century, around ten percent of women under 30 had to supplement their income with prostitution in order to survive. Is that the free market you are speaking of? Some people in the nineteenth century argued that making poor people be slaves was the answer. According to George Fitzhugh, slavery "was welfare program enough ... and it worked so well for 'Negroes' that it could and should solve the subsistence problems of poor whites as well."

Is that the free market welfare you are speaking of?

[Cassandra]

[

Before the great depression. After the depression the new deal came along to help. Instead of being temporary, government programs got bigger and bigger and continue to grow even today.

As in the 1920s!?!?!?! As in the economic boom that was an anomaly that caused the Great Depression!?!?!

Congratulations. You win.

[Shirley MacLaine]

By your logic, the New Deal shouldn't have been necessary at all, whether as a temporary measure or not. Shouldn't the magical private sector have saved everyone?

[Lainey]

I am pro-life and I'm not against social services. I simply think they and most things can be done better in the free market rather than by the government.

Even though you're demonstrably wrong about that?

Out of curiosity, where do you stand on the death penalty?

And how come you're all for the government getting out of people's affairs, unless those people happen to be women of childbearing age?

[Constance Vigilance]

I am pro-life and I'm not against social services. I simply think they and most things can be done better in the free market rather than by the government.

Oh, jericho, now you're not even trolling consistently. Not two pages ago you said:

It's not viable now because the government is still handing out free money. Get rid of Welfare and see how many private organizations step up and form to fill in the gap. Then the government saved billions of dollars that congress can waste away on frivolous things.

Now how do you get rid of welfare without getting rid of welfare? You see how you've fallen down?

Come on, don't let this get to you. You're never going to be in the big leagues, but if you pick up your game you could be on at least a C average. Try the bit about the 1900s again. You had some good insane links, and people were really enjoying the mental imagery.

*Edited for a riffle.

[jericho]

Many people also disagree with this. Why is your personal belief about when life begins the one that should be legislated? Why should you get to inflict your personal beliefs onto other people? If abortion is legal then you are able to practice your own personal beliefs and other people are able to practice theirs, everybody gets to practice what they believe. If abortion is legal only part of the population gets to practice what they believe. That is neither right nor fair.

Because there are other lives at stake. The lives of the unborn.

[debrand]

Before the great depression. After the depression the new deal came along to help. Instead of being temporary, government programs got bigger and bigger and continue to grow even today.

So, would you allow little children to work in dangerous factories for low pay and long hours? What about coal mines where workers had to pay outrageous prices to company stores so that the workers couldn't save money in order to escape their poverty?

[oscar]

I'm flabbergasted that anyone would think that the early 20th century was better for those who were poor.

Seems to be precious little thinking going on there, debrand.

[Shirley MacLaine]

Many people also disagree with this. Why is your personal belief about when life begins the one that should be legislated?

Because our view doesn't force anyone to have an abortion, it doesn't force anyone to do anything.

[formergothardite]

Proof of your beliefs are not on your side, though. If it would all work like you say, you should be able to show in huge portions of American history before the government started providing for those in need. History has proven your beliefs wrong. Unless you looked at those photes I posted from the early 1900's of what children who lived in poverty really lived like and you think it is okay. And if you do, you hate children and suck as a Christian.

[Boogalou]

Because there are other lives at stake. The lives of the unborn.

YOU believe there are lives at stake, other people do not. Do you understand this?

[Constance Vigilance]

you hate children and suck as a Christian.

Oh, these are givens at this point.

[emmiedahl]

Jericho, you are advocating that poor children starve. Do you see that?

1. Before government social services, poor children starved because private aid was not enough.

2. You want to take away government services and shift the responsibility back to private aid.

3. So poor children would starve.

Does that make it easier for you to see what you are advocating?

eta: you also believe that women should be forced to bear those children who would, you know, starve to death. So you are against an early and painless procedure, but not against a slow and painful death. That is reprehensible.

[jericho]

The thing is, living in the most conservative province in Canada, I've heard all these arguments for smaller government and privatization. I used to buy into them, when I was young and foolish. But then I started to see something that was troubling: services and institutions got worse when they were privatized. There are still people who, like Jericho here, are all for privatization...and I really don't understand why. Of course, these are people who, like Jericho, are on the other side of the poverty line, and think it's as simple as everyone just not being lazy and getting off their asses to go to work. Except, again, real life and real people are messy, and don't fit into the neat little boxes certain people would like to lay out for them.

There are people here who fight against the privatization of our health care system. I'm glad for them. SO glad. I would never want to live in the States, solely because of your horrendous health care system. The thing is, Jericho, I know you think you're right that privatization is better. But you're wrong. I've seen it. Frankly, the government can do some things better. And yes, some people do have to be forced to help their fellow citizens through taxes. They benefit from it, too, though.

The government is needed for certain things. For example, if there were private police and fire stations, things would be chaotic.

[Shirley MacLaine]

if there were private police and fire stations, things would be chaotic.

alksdjf;alksfj;laskjdf misread! (this was an edit, so I don't look too crazazy)