Again, that's a product of circumstance. My point was that had circumstances been different, (I used public healthcare as an example, but even that isn't necessarily the only other way) then similar treatment may have come from a different source.

But if during those circumstances PP haven't been around, then something terrible could have happened to her. Thousands of people are going through those circumstances, and they are now at the risk of losing the one institution that helps them when they've been unable to get help from other sources, what are you going to tell them "Oh, just wait for the circumstances to pass so you can find another way to work this out". Some people can't get many choices.

And yes, I overused the word "circumstance", but I'm trying to make a point.

I would like to see what our little Aquinacon has to say about DG's situation. Then again, it seems like he would be callous enough to just disregard her as a casualty, sacrificed for improved moral fiber of our christian nation.

Yeah, and I'm a fucking Crusader.

@Neo: I know, there's half a dozen other ways for people to get birth control, but none of them specifically work with people living below the poverty line. And considering that almost 60% of Americans will be below the poverty line at some point in their life, I'd say that stating "not everyone has the same set of circumstances as you" is not an effective argument.

Yes, it's a failing of the healthcare system in the US, but getting rid of it instead of replacing it with a better system is bullshit.

DG's use for it as something other than contraception would find no objection from me. I've long since accepted that contraceptives are here to stay. So your tactics don't work on me, sir, oh no. I may be a Knight Templar at times, but I'm not stupid.

And as I said earlier, I support Obamacare, more or less. Frankly, that's not my bone to pick.

edited 21st Feb '11 11:16:29 AM by Cojuanco

It's just that by supporting the move to cease funding for PP, you're inadvertently supporting the view of "I want people who disagree with me to die".

Yes, it means that there would be a slight decrease in abortions, but at the expense of those who use Planned Parenthood's services in non-controversial ways. Not only that, but you have to realize that you would also be supporting the cessation of affordable family planning, LGBT counseling services, and reproductive health services for men and women.

Yes, all of those services are available elsewhere, but none of them are affordable for those under the poverty line, and none of them are consistently available in one location.

Lets face it. You're morally opposed to a program that saved my life.

Bureaucrats and others close down hospitals, too, that save people's lives. It doesn't mean they intend evil. And I'd support alternative programs instituted that would do the same thing, only without the controversial parts. There is always another way around this.

But what the heck, none of you are going to ever agree with me on this issue one bit, so what's the bloody use? At least when clobbering each other, we were more honest.

edited 21st Feb '11 11:34:22 AM by Cojuanco

I'm seeing a lot of making perfect the enemy of good here.

But we ought to strive to perfection, though, right? If we settled on good enough, we'd be still living in caves, hunting wildebeest with our bare hands.

Perfection varies from person to person, thus we should advance one compromise at a time. What you consider perfection wouldn't be what I consider perfection, or the next person.

Thus perfection as a nation can never be achieved, and I have plenty of doubts about perfection as an individual as well. All you can really do is your best, but the whole thing is too subjective to really put a label on.

"Yes, it's a failing of the healthcare system in the US, but getting rid of it instead of replacing it with a better system is bullshit." - Drunk Girlfriend

Well hey, I wasn't arguing for getting rid of Planned Parenthood so much as criticizing your particular argument in favour of keeping it. Your point probably applies to keeping Planned Parenthood funded in the meantime, but not necessarily to keeping it funded in the long run.

EDIT: To make my point clearer, I'm going to use something you said to Cojuanco:

"You're morally opposed to a program that saved my life." - Drunk Girlfriend

I often feel this way about those who oppose experiments on animals. It is because of Banting and Best doing experiments on dogs that insulin therapy was developed, and this in turn saved my life because as a type 1 diabetic, I would have died without it. Opponents of animal testing argue that it's a matter of circumstance that this insulin therapy was developed through experiments on dogs, and it might have been discovered another way... and ultimately, they have a point. While I do believe that experiments on animals should be continued until we have a viable alternative (and if they're to say we do, the burden of proof is on them) I at the same time accept that it's a matter of circumstance that what some morally object to is what happened to be the source of that which saved my life.

edited 21st Feb '11 11:51:09 AM by neoYTPism

@Cojuanco: When they institute a facility that provides everything except elective abortions, then you can make that point.

As it stands in reality, you still want to stop a program that saves lives.

@Neo: If they were talking about replacing it with a better system, I wouldn't have any problem with it. But they're not.

edited 21st Feb '11 11:47:46 AM by DrunkGirlfriend

Maybe that's why I'm starting to have some doubts on democracy and peace. I mean, in things like the culture wars, neither side is ever going to get what they want in a democracy. And the issue never gets solved, and it never goes away, and it won't end until the end of the world.

I mean, I think the only way anyone's going to get real change on these sorts of divisive issues involves blood and guts.

You know what? We're never going to agree. You're going to keep on thinking, whatever I say, that I'm some foolish or evil bastard who wants people to die, and I'm going to think that you're a deluded fool who doesn't care if people die. So I think debate is increasingly becoming pointless.

edited 21st Feb '11 11:49:18 AM by Cojuanco

And that's when people start worrying about the extreme right. People that think that way bring up mental images of those assholes trying to burn down Planned Parenthood clinics, or the guy that shot the doctor.

I'm never going to get what I want from democracy either, so why can't we come to a workable agreement?

Or perhaps just cutting the country in half and being like "Yeah, conservatives on this side, liberals on this side."

The key to democracy is essentially that while no side is completely content, no side is being utterly oppressed either. It's a form of stability without all the effort that goes into oppression at the government level. Yes, this means we're a perpetual fulcrum of argumental tug of war, but it's better than being ruled by the iron fist of some asshole who thinks he's right about everything.

edited 21st Feb '11 12:01:44 PM by Barkey

"Or perhaps just cutting the country in half" - Barkey

That's what I thought at first too, but thinking about it further, even that might not be enough for those who feel obliged to protect fetuses even if they have to keep conservatives and liberals under the same government to do so.

Oh, and Drunk Girlfriend, have you seen my Banting and Best analogy?

That's the thing with the culture wars - the only way any isde is ever going to be satisfied is if either Christ Himself comes down and takes one side or another personally, or one side decides it's time for armed revolution.

I honestly don't know what to do. I have my convictions, but if either side sees compromise as an affront to what they hold dear, how does that work in a democracy?

edited 21st Feb '11 12:00:37 PM by Cojuanco

These arguments will never be resolved, and honestly, that's the best and only way this should continue, forever in a deadlock. One side can never win completely, that's an unacceptable outcome to me. The deadlock and struggle must be maintained, or a compromise that the majority is comfortable with while the extremists continue to argue.

It's essentially like the way the battle between Order and Chaos is seen in lots of popular media, if Chaos wins, we destroy ourselves. If Order wins, our quality of life and freedoms suffer massively. There is a balance that must be maintained.

edited 21st Feb '11 12:04:45 PM by Barkey

The thing is, those in power are the extremists, at least on this issue. They're the ones who get elected to office, who give a damn about raising money, protesting, answering phones, anything for The Cause. And having been involved in activism (for both left-wing and right-wing causes), it makes you feel good about yourself, at least to the radicals. For moderates, they often have better things to do, so they don't get involved - they don't run for office, they don't vote in primaries, they don't have the dedication to go door-to-door.

I may disagree with NARAL's or the Teepers' goals, but I admire their dedication to something they believe in - willing to put in all that time and effort for a cause they believe in. Moderates are often from my experience apathetic. That's why I think colleges are percieved as particularly radical - because all the moderate students simply do other things.

I mean, both you and I live in California. Of all our Congresscritters, when it comes to ratings from NRLC or NARAL, it's always ever 100 percent or 0 percent. Let's face it - at least the extremists give a damn.

edited 21st Feb '11 12:10:31 PM by Cojuanco

That is true, I think the moderates could be roused eventually, but it would take one side getting way too close to absolute domination of our political system to do so. Things would have to get one-sided enough to where one sides silent majority would be outraged and displeased enough to work up the effort to protest and campaign for once, while the other sides moderates would have a few people roused to counter it, but most of them would just be complacent about the fact that their side was winning at the time.

An eternal scale of balance that sways left and right continuously. The only way to lock that scale in one direction or another is through violence and control that violates our current civil rights. The Republic would have to completely fail for one side to take control, and there would be chaos for a time.

edited 21st Feb '11 12:14:23 PM by Barkey

Strangely enough, if you took all my other positions, I'd be a center-right moderate, perhaps even a little liberal around the edges when it comes to labor unions (my family has strong union influence, even if we're almost all Republicans). I guess the culture wars are my single issue wonk. Heck, if it weren't for the prochoicers showing liberal prolifers the door in '94, I might even be a registered Democrat.

The problem I think is that extremism suits the people in power - I mean, if I talked to people in my local area about better schools, better roads, maybe a new train station, more rights for workers, I'd put them to sleep. But if I started ranting about abortion or gays (either side) people would give a fuck, even if it was only to throw milk curd at me or to say "Amen, brother" (this area being the center of fundies in So Cal for some reason).

edited 21st Feb '11 12:27:15 PM by Cojuanco

Yeah, I used to live in San Bernardino, and it was weird. I mostly liked the fact that it's a relatively conservative and pro-gun area, but then you would get the occasional jesus freak out of the woodwork to take things a little too far and talk about pressing their own morality onto others, regardless of what they thought.

Not that I like the other side much either, a group of people who would protect me from myself when I don't want or need such protection, take away my right to defend myself and make my own choices, and an attitude that discourages the concept of working hard to get the things that you want for yourself and worrying about you and your own.

In other words, people who want to make tons of choices for me that they have no right to make. Both sides can suck it.

Nothing beats having the same home town as Jack Chick himself. He lives not too far down the street, actually. Quiet guy, doesn't make trouble. Bit of a recluse though.

I'm with Barkey here. I don't want the right pushing their morals on me any more than I want the left legislating everything. I would like for people to let me live the life of my choosing. As long as nobody  ^*

^{Granted, whether or not fetuses count as somebody would still be up for debate.}

is getting hurt, nobody else should have the right to step in.

Also, holy crap Barkey, Dad grew up in San Bernardino. Of course, he also moved away from San Bernardino because it wasn't conservative enough. -_-;

^^ ...You live in the same town as that nutcase? Wow, how does it feel to live near Christian Charles Manson?

edited 21st Feb '11 12:54:10 PM by SilentStranger