Mississippi's 'Personhood' Law Could Outlaw Birth Control

[debrand]

Is that what I said?

Yes, you did. The poster mentioned 'you can legislate or follow Christian beliefs. Cool" Obviously they were being sarcastic. You responded with "only ones that pertain to incivility. I.e Murder, theft, battery. Etc."

Your statement only makes sense if you are saying that laws against murder are based on Christian values. What else could you mean that makes sense in the context of that conversation?

[jericho]

1. When private schools were the only form of education, the majority of the population was illiterate. Is that your idea of success?

2. How is agriculture a social program?

3. Child care is not offered as a free social program on any reasonable scale by anyone that I that I know of. The government helps in some cases because the only alternative is for the parents to not work or for the children to be left alone. Is that a private program success story?

4. Back when social programs were handled by churches, poor people routinely went without food, clothing and shelter. Is that a success story?

1. And as usual, the government jumped in, got more and more involved and now look at the state of public schools.

2. You said "private programs". Why is it that the U.S. department of agriculture gets bigger and bigger while the amount and size of farms get smaller and smaller.

3 & 4. So you think that when Churches and charities handled welfare that people were worse off? So its better that people give less to private programs and just let the government take it out of our pay check?

[urban teacher]

The early 1900s were so much fun even my students who are in special education saw pictures and said"Why was this allowed?" Children working and losing arms in factories, mining accidents, etc. Jericho must be talking about when Progressives became involved.

[Boogalou]

1. Good.

2. You believe life begins at conception. Other people do not believe that life begins at conception. So, for you, this might be about the life of a human being, while for others it is not. For you this is more than inflicting your beliefs on another, for others this is part of what it is.

I realize that this frames the "debate" in a very different way as each group is essentially arguing two different things that will never line up. So, for people who are pro-life you are still inflicting your beliefs on women, the belief about when life begins. Why is it not enough for you to say that you believe life begins conception and all life is sacred and abortion is wrong so you, yourself, will not get one, but since other people see life as begining later, then they are free to make their own reproductive decisions? Why are the personal opinions of those who disagree with you not equally as important? The way I see it is that if abortion is legal than it is better for everyone. Those who believe it's wrong don't have to get one, those who do not believe it is wrong are free to make the choice to get one.

While I respect your beliefs, I still see them as personal beliefs that should not be forced on those who disagree with you.

I don't know if you are answering questions in order or what, but I would still appreciate it if you respond to this.

[debrand]

I'm listening to NPR right now and a historian is talking about the history of contraception and abortion in the US. Studies have shown that during the 19-teens, one in three poor women had abortions. So much for criminalizing abortion being much of a barrier. :roll:

http://www.npr.org/2011/11/09/142097521 ... oliticized

My grandmother's mother was a midwife in the early twentieth century. My grandmother said her mother knew herbs that would 'bring on a woman's menustration. " She didn't call it an abortion but that was what the herbs did.

[jericho]

Glad I'm not holding my breath waiting for some real answers, here.

I never claimed to have all the answers.

[emmiedahl]

1. I am not an apologist for public schools. I am merely asking: is a literacy rate under 50% acceptable to you? Because that is what it looked like before public schools. You said that private programs did it better, is that 'better' to you?

2. Actually, farms are getting larger and larger, more corporate, a fact that I actually don't really like. Nonetheless, the US has gone from not even supplying its own people with sufficient food to feeding the world. Are you suggesting that we should go back to subsistence farming?

3. and 4. It is proven that when churches and charities handled welfare, people were worse off. That is why the government had to step in.

I am still waiting to hear in what time period my life would be better...

You admit you don't have all the answers, and yet you seem to think that you should be making all the decisions about *my* uterus. You need to get some fucking answers before you go there.

[BravaAmica]

[quote="jericho"

1. And as usual, the government jumped in, got more and more involved and now look at the state of public schools.

[formergothardite]

1. And as usual, the government jumped in, got more and more involved and now look at the state of public schools.

2. You said "private programs". Why is it that the U.S. department of agriculture gets bigger and bigger while the amount and size of farms get smaller and smaller.

3 & 4. So you think that when Churches and charities handled welfare that people were worse off? So its better that people give less to private programs and just let the government take it out of our pay check?[/quote]

Please provide solid non-biased proof that before the government stepped in, private churches and charities handled welfare better than the government is doing now. The early 1900's that you mentioned was a giant fail at proving that.

[jericho]

I don't know if you are answering questions in order or what, but I would still appreciate it if you respond to this.

I don't know what more to say. I believe abortion should be against the law because it takes the life if a child in the womb. Many people do agree with this, that is why we have a huge debate on the issue.

[emmiedahl]

So you believe that every pregnancy should be brought to term regardless of the toll on the mother or the child's prospects in life.

That is fucked up. I mean, I don't like abortion. I just don't like it. But I would never assume that I have the right to make that kind of decision for other people. Wow. You have some chutzpah. Coming in here claiming that we should all go back to the nineteenth century because you have a personal issue with a medical procedure.

[formergothardite]

I wonder if Jericho follows Dougies version of history and that is why he/she thought the 1900's would just be a swell time to send a poor, single mother too. Why did you think it would be a great time?

[debrand]

1. I am not an apologist for public schools. I am merely asking: is a literacy rate under 50% acceptable to you? Because that is what it looked like before public schools. You said that private programs did it better, is that 'better' to you?

This. I home school but I know that not every parent can or should home school. Private schools are out of the financial reach for many people. Public school serves a real need in our country. Is it a perfect solution? No. But public school offers some kids their only way to escape poverty.

[Witsec1]

What do you think the penalty should be for having an abortion?

[jericho]

1. And as usual, the government jumped in, got more and more involved and now look at the state of public schools.

2. You said "private programs". Why is it that the U.S. department of agriculture gets bigger and bigger while the amount and size of farms get smaller and smaller.

3 & 4. So you think that when Churches and charities handled welfare that people were worse off? So its better that people give less to private programs and just let the government take it out of our pay check?[/quote]

Please provide solid non-biased proof that before the government stepped in, private churches and charities handled welfare better than the government is doing now. The early 1900's that you mentioned was a giant fail at proving that.

I think I posted this link before, but this but if info was in it. "Apart from informal giving by neighbors and friends, and assistance provided through church congregations, the major sources of reciprocal relief were fraternal societies such as the Knights of Pythias, Sons of Italy, Polish National Alliance, and Independent Order of Odd Fellows. The activities of these societies dwarfed those of organized charity and governmental poor-relief bureaucracies. In 1920, for example, there were over 10,000 fraternal orders in the United States with roughly 100,000 separate lodges. That year, about 18 million Americans (most of them wage earners) were members—roughly 30 per cent of all adults over age twenty."

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/feature ... reaucracy/

[notsocommon]

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists accepts that a regularly sexually woman who is healthy, of prime childbearing age, and uses no contraception actually has 4-5 fertilizations per year.

Let me get this straight..... so these fundies who shun BC because it is abortive!!11!! Actually abort 4-5 'babies' a year? Isn't that precious!

I wonder what the conception rates are for people who use various forms of BC.

[emmiedahl]

I'm not denying that there *was* private help. I am saying that the private help was *not* sufficient. That poor people starved, went without heat, died of poverty-related causes, were uneducated, because the private help was not enough. There were relief organizations but until the government stepped in, it was not enough to even put a dent in the problem.

Tell me how to feed my kids without food stamps. On the bag of groceries every two months.

Tell me how to get them medical care without medicaid.

Tell me how to educate them while working full time, without a public school.

Tell me how to keep a home without subsidized housing that keeps my rent from being more than 100% of my take home income.

Those are the real problems facing poor people. Before government help, people died for a lack of those things. Solve away, the tax payers will thank you.

[Burris]

What do you think the penalty should be for having an abortion?

Alas, he doesn't have all the answers so he doesn't bother giving more than a very few. Cross your fingers and hope he at least gets aroung to telling you what he believes about this question.

[formergothardite]

I'm not going to go to your extremly biased site and waste my time there, please cite other historical links to prove your point. . Did you bother looking at the link that SHOWED pictures of what poor children lived like in the early 1900's. You sending your kids to live like that?

[emmiedahl]

This lady has obviously never studied history or, you know, read a book from that time. Read Dickens, Steinbeck, the endless stories of people doing without necessities, working endlessly to keep body with soul. Read Frank McCourt's accounts of how his mother was treated by those charitable organizations. You should not have to grovel to get a bit of meat on Christmas eve. I am just floored that someone finds that acceptable.

[jericho]

1. I am not an apologist for public schools. I am merely asking: is a literacy rate under 50% acceptable to you? Because that is what it looked like before public schools. You said that private programs did it better, is that 'better' to you?

2. Actually, farms are getting larger and larger, more corporate, a fact that I actually don't really like. Nonetheless, the US has gone from not even supplying its own people with sufficient food to feeding the world. Are you suggesting that we should go back to subsistence farming?

3. and 4. It is proven that when churches and charities handled welfare, people were worse off. That is why the government had to step in.

I am still waiting to hear in what time period my life would be better...

You admit you don't have all the answers, and yet you seem to think that you should be making all the decisions about *my* uterus. You need to get some fucking answers before you go there.

It's the life in your uterus to be exact.

[Lainey]

I disagree. I believe in small government and that anything can be done better in the free market, including charities.

Oh, absolutely. In fact, off the top of my head, I can think of an example from my province.

There was the telephone company. It used to be run by the provincial government, and was called AGT. Then it was taken over by the private company, Telus. If you are familiar with Telus, you will recognize them for the wonderful reputation they, er, well...maybe that's not the best example.

Alright, then, let's move on to the US. Clearly you can see what an advantage it is to have your health care in the hands of private compan---er, maybe that's not the best example, either.

Okay, how about banks? Clearly it has been beneficial to have privatized banks, as they do in the States. Right? Oh...wait...you mean that didn't work out so well, either? Hmmm.

Perhaps we need to go think about this some more, jericho. :think:

[emmiedahl]

It's the life in your uterus to be exact.

The life in my uterus would be better if it lived 100 years ago and died of hunger at age 2?

[Austin]

1. I am not an apologist for public schools. I am merely asking: is a literacy rate under 50% acceptable to you? Because that is what it looked like before public schools. You said that private programs did it better, is that 'better' to you?

I've seen what for-profit education looks like, and unless it's a wealthy population, it's much worse than public schools. Google "Imagine Schools St. Louis" and get a glimpse of how the largest for-profit educational organization operates in this country. Look at their outstanding scores (NOT).

Every single for-profit school that borders our school district is underperforming. But people send their children to these schools, even though our public school district is rated "Excellent" by the Dept of Education, because they believe, quite erroneously, that private is always better. lol

The single most important factor for educational success, no matter what school you're talking about, is parental involvement and commitment to their child's education. We, by choice, sent our children to a public school whose population was underprivileged students (largely African American or Hispanic, largely poor) for middle school. The school, overall, did not score well on standardized testing. However, our sons flourished. They had the same teachers as everybody else. They had the same textbooks and materials and in-school opportunities as everyone else. And they weren't the only ones who did very well - other students with concerned and involved parents did quite well. When our sons came back to their home school for high school (largely white, largely middle class), they were on par or further along than anyone else there. I can't imagine what the difference was. :roll:

This is not to say that poor parents are less concerned with their children or love them less, but they are usually doing all they can to "keep body and soul together", as my momma liked to say, and things like P/T conferences and the PTA were luxuries they felt they couldn't afford. They didn't have the energy, or were not around b/c of working two jobs, to check homework and sign agenda books for their children in the evenings, or teach them their multiplication tables. If we would do more to help struggling parents in this country, maybe they'd have some time to help their kids. But in the world jericho wants, everybody is on their own. fanTAStic

Also, private schools do not have to take any child they don't want to and can boot anyone out that they wish, and public schools have to take everyone. It's really not a very fair comparison.

[jericho]

What do you think the penalty should be for having an abortion?

I'm not going there. I just agree with outlawing it.