• Supreme Court Throws Out Arkansas' Abortion Ban
    28 replies, posted
Source: [url]http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/01/arkansas-abortion-ban-supreme-court[/url] [QUOTE]In February 2013, Arkansas passed the Human Heartbeat Protection Act, a bill outlawing abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy if a heartbeat is detected.The new law came at a fine moment for the state's anti-abortion legislators: In recent months, they'd passed a bill doubling the state's mandated abortion waiting period, and had passed a 20-week ban on abortion.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]The 12-week ban, however, was at the time the most restrictive abortion ban passed not only in the state, but in the nation. A pair of Arkansas doctors challenged the bill as unconstitutional and two lower courts prevented the ban from going into effect. Today, the Supreme Court rejected Arkansas' bid for reconsideration of the abortion ban. The high court's decision not to take this case, [I]Edwards v. Beck[/I], and to uphold lower courts' decisions to throw out Arkansas' law, could send a signal and help curb early abortion bans in other states.[/QUOTE]
Boy oh boy, my FB feed is gonna be a hilarious shitfit once they find out.
[QUOTE=Water-Marine;49573894]Boy oh boy, my FB feed is gonna be a hilarious shitfit once they find out.[/QUOTE] um, why.?
[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;49573942]um, why.?[/QUOTE] because in america everybody cares about babies until they're actually babies, then fuck them they're on their own when it comes to state help
[QUOTE=Sableye;49573967]because in america everybody cares about babies until they're actually babies, then fuck them they're on their own when it comes to state help[/QUOTE] Can you directly quote or show a single person who advocated not giving any state aid to babies in need? I always hear liberals say this, but I've never actually heard a real person say it seriously.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49573999]Can you directly quote or show a single person who advocated not giving any state aid to babies in need? I always hear liberals say this, but I've never actually heard a real person say it seriously.[/QUOTE] Actions speak louder than words. Conservatives tend to be pro-life but do not support (or want to reduce/restrict) things like government welfare for poor families with kids.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49573999]Can you directly quote or show a single person who advocated not giving any state aid to babies in need? I always hear liberals say this, but I've never actually heard a real person say it seriously.[/QUOTE] Yes, but conservatives are always trying to defund programs like food stamps, early headstart, and WIC. All of those things can directly help babies.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49573999]Can you directly quote or show a single person who advocated not giving any state aid to babies in need? I always hear liberals say this, but I've never actually heard a real person say it seriously.[/QUOTE] Its not that they outright say it so much as their actions that say it. Defunding welfare being the prime example.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49573999]Can you directly quote or show a single person who advocated not giving any state aid to babies in need? I always hear liberals say this, but I've never actually heard a real person say it seriously.[/QUOTE] Why publicly state something so heinous when you can silently pass it as law?
[QUOTE]Actions speak louder than words. Conservatives tend to be pro-life but do not support (or want to reduce/restrict) things like government welfare for poor families with kids.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Yes, but conservatives are always trying to defund programs like food stamps, early headstart, and WIC. All of those things can directly help babies.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Its not that they outright say it so much as their actions that say it. Defunding welfare being the prime example.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Why publicly state something so heinous when you can silently pass it as law?[/QUOTE] Cutting welfare generally is not at all the same thing as cutting help from babies who need help. That would be like me saying that democrats want Jews to die because they want to cut the military. Conservative arguments about cutting welfare come down to waste and abuse, not taking help from those actually in need. The lack of evidence of anyone actually advocating for what you're claiming speaks volumes.
[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;49574162]In the eyes of many conservatives I know, welfare users are leaches. Ergo poor people are poor because they are lazy.[/QUOTE] Babies can't be lazy. So even if your anecdote of conservatives was entirely, 100% accurate, it still wouldn't go anywhere to prove what I'm asking about. What's funny is that I personally know of quite a few churches, full of conservatives, that provide essentially the full operating cost of many pregnancy resource centers (free help for new mothers including things like diapers, blankets, food, etc.) for the very reason that babies deserve help no matter what. I have a strong feeling that you're strawmanning their beliefs, but that's irrelevant to the issue at hand.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49574167]Babies can't be lazy. So even if your anecdote of conservatives was entirely, 100% accurate, it still wouldn't go anywhere to prove what I'm asking about. What's funny is that I personally know of quite a few churches, full of conservatives, that provide essentially the full operating cost of many pregnancy resource centers (free help for new mothers including things like diapers, blankets, food, etc.) for the very reason that babies deserve help no matter what. I have a strong feeling that you're strawmanning their beliefs, but that's irrelevant to the issue at hand.[/QUOTE] So babies deserve help but there's an age cutoff at which people no longer need help?
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;49574189]Babies are super lazy, all they do is eat and shit and then they don't even remember it[/QUOTE] You know what I meant. [editline]20th January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=proboardslol;49574211]So babies deserve help but there's an age cutoff at which people no longer need help?[/QUOTE] I'm not making an argument about welfare. I'm just challenging people to actually show that conservatives don't want to help babies in need once they're born. It's a claim that I've heard time and time again, but have never actually heard anyone advocate for in real life.
[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;49573942]um, why.?[/QUOTE] I'm from Southwest Arkansas. Like, deep southwest. Southern Baptist churches every mile even if the town population can't fill them all.
[QUOTE=Sableye;49573967]because in america everybody cares about babies until they're actually babies, then fuck them they're on their own when it comes to state help[/QUOTE] I say fuck em from the day they were literally fucked into existence until the day they die.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;49574189]Babies are super lazy, all they do is eat and shit and then they don't even remember it[/QUOTE] Doesn't seem far off from the average facepuncher
Good. Stop forcing there to be kids if nobody wants them.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49574212]You know what I meant. [editline]20th January 2016[/editline] I'm not making an argument about welfare. I'm just challenging people to actually show that conservatives don't want to help babies in need once they're born. It's a claim that I've heard time and time again, but have never actually heard anyone advocate for in real life.[/QUOTE] They cut programs specifically designed to help children or that primarily help children. Neonatal care, head start, school lunch, day care, food stamps, etc. All under the guise of cutting waste even though its an insignificant portion of the budget and these same people are constantly trying to inject money into the military. Sorry we couldn't afford your kid's reduced lunch, we needed to fund a new jet that the air force doesn't want and doesn't work.
-snap-
[QUOTE=sgman91;49574212]You know what I meant. [editline]20th January 2016[/editline] I'm not making an argument about welfare. I'm just challenging people to actually show that conservatives don't want to help babies in need once they're born. It's a claim that I've heard time and time again, but have never actually heard anyone advocate for in real life.[/QUOTE] i don't think its conservatives that don't want to help babies as much as people in general that sit on facebook with their high horses talking about how saving babies before they're babies is the right way and getting 20 likes for it. it's like those people that complain that we aren't doing enough to help Africa or that nobody is giving that homeless guy any money, while not doing anything themselves. i'm sure the 80% of the people complaining about that issue on facebook, if they had a choice on whether or not they'd choose to take care of a child instead of having it aborted, would say no thanks because the responsibility is too great.
[QUOTE=Omali;49578081]They cut programs specifically designed to help children or that primarily help children. Neonatal care, head start, school lunch, day care, food stamps, etc. All under the guise of cutting waste even though its an insignificant portion of the budget and these same people are constantly trying to inject money into the military. Sorry we couldn't afford your kid's reduced lunch, we needed to fund a new jet that the air force doesn't want and doesn't work.[/QUOTE] It really comes down to the liberal belief that conservatives aren't just wrong, they're evil. Instead of actually taking people at their words when they make arguments about a program not reaching its intended goal, not actually helping people, being a horrible waste of money can be better spent in another fashion for better results, etc. many liberals just believe that conservatives are bad people who either don't care about people or actively want to hurt people. For example, democrats generally want to allow abortions. I can take this two ways. I can either take their arguments at face value, that fetuses don't have the requisite capacities to have human rights, or I can just think that they consciously just don't value some human life. The first one is a disagreement about facts. The second would be me thinking that liberals are bad people and that's why they disagree. To say that conservatives don't care about babies after they're born is to do the second when it should be the first. Conservatives care just as much about babies as liberals, they just disagree on the best way to go about it.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49574167]Babies can't be lazy. So even if your anecdote of conservatives was entirely, 100% accurate, it still wouldn't go anywhere to prove what I'm asking about. What's funny is that I personally know of quite a few churches, full of conservatives, that provide essentially the full operating cost of many pregnancy resource centers (free help for new mothers including things like diapers, blankets, food, etc.) for the very reason that babies deserve help no matter what. I have a strong feeling that you're strawmanning their beliefs, but that's irrelevant to the issue at hand.[/QUOTE] It's certainly a strawman to imply that conservatives want to directly and deliberately hurt babies by defunding programs related to babies, but it's much more fair to argue that many conservative economic policies are targeted towards reducing or defunding common state welfare programs, which would have serious consequences for lower class families. On a broader level, the theory of "trickle down" economics oft lauded by economic conservatives is also highly criticized as giving the short end of the stick to lower class Americans.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49580131]It's certainly a strawman to imply that conservatives want to directly and deliberately hurt babies by defunding programs related to babies, but it's much more fair to argue that many conservative economic policies are targeted towards reducing or defunding common state welfare programs, which would have serious consequences for lower class families. On a broader level, the theory of "trickle down" economics oft lauded by economic conservatives is also highly criticized as giving the short end of the stick to lower class Americans.[/QUOTE] Firstly, "Trickle down" is a phrase used exclusively by liberals to strawman conservative economic theory. It doesn't represent an actual theory proposed by conservatives or conservative economists. There's a reason conservatives want to lower taxes for everyone, not just the rich. [QUOTE]but it's much more fair to argue that many conservative economic policies are targeted towards reducing or defunding common state welfare programs, which would have serious consequences for lower class families.[/QUOTE] It's fair if you have evidence to back it up for specific proposals, but generally, it really isn't because the conversation is much too complex for that kind of simplistic thinking. For example, take the Detroit school system that has recently been talked about in a couple threads. When going through the their budget I noticed that the amount they spend on food services is basically the same as it was 10 years ago, the difference being that they have a third of the number of kids that they had 10 years ago. So same amount of money, and a third of the students. Now, I'm also sure that there are a large number of kids on the free lunch program in that district. I, personally, think it's perfectly rational to question and criticize the funding of that system of welfare when such a huge portion of money is already being wasted in other areas directly related. Note that their food services currently takes up about 12% of the total budget, over 40 million dollars. So it's not chump change. To reduce that kind of discussion down to, "Well, hey, defunding programs for the poor hurts kids," is nothing more than hard-headed ignorance. [editline]21st January 2016[/editline] Take someone like Milton Friedman, probably one of the most extreme libertarian economists who actually gained traction with conservatism. He wanted to defund all our current welfare programs and replace them with a guaranteed minimum income (or negative income tax as he called it) for all people. Did he not care about people? Of course not, he thought that doing it his way would actually be better in the long run because it gave poorer people the freedom to actually buy what they needed instead of having a bureaucracy tell them what they needed.
I'd be fine with that. It'd probably make capitalism work even more smoothly since now everyone, even the unemployed, would have at least some purchasing power. And plus it kinda makes sense to do something like that now. There aren't enough jobs anymore. Work isn't guaranteed for anyone on the low end of the economic spectrum. Especially since most manufacturing is done elsewhere, and you really don't need many people to run a retail store or restaurant, there just isn't much else to do on the low end. That would be a system where comfort is mandatory but success is optional? Which I'm cool with really, but it seems very far away from what any conservative I've ever spoken to agrees with. Because that seems like a welfare state to the highest degree. Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but basically you're saying no more welfare, but everyone is guaranteed a check and what you do with it is up to you? Yeah that seems like the "giving free money to all the freeloaders" type of system that people with conservative values would definitely oppose.
[QUOTE=J Paul;49589609]I'd be fine with that. It'd probably make capitalism work even more smoothly since now everyone, even the unemployed, would have at least some purchasing power. And plus it kinda makes sense to do something like that now. There aren't enough jobs anymore. Work isn't guaranteed for anyone on the low end of the economic spectrum. Especially since most manufacturing is done elsewhere, and you really don't need many people to run a retail store or restaurant, there just isn't much else to do on the low end. That would be a system where comfort is mandatory but success is optional? Which I'm cool with really, but it seems very far away from what any conservative I've ever spoken to agrees with. Because that seems like a welfare state to the highest degree. Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but basically you're saying no more welfare, but everyone is guaranteed a check and what you do with it is up to you? Yeah that seems like the "giving free money to all the freeloaders" type of system that people with conservative values would definitely oppose.[/QUOTE] That kind of system would cost FAR less than what we currently spend on welfare. So if actually proposed like it was by Milton Friedman, then I'm willing to bet a lot of conservatives would jump on the boat. We spend approximately $168 per day for each person in poverty. That's right around $60,000 a year per person. If we were to just hand every single person in poverty $40,000 a year we would actually save an incredible amount of money. There one huge issue with this though: we would have to be willing to allow people to fail. If a person wastes their money on drugs, gambling, buying a car instead of food, etc., then the state can't come in and provide more. We would just end up right back where we were with tons of programs for different things. Personally, I don't think modern western society has the stomach for that kind of welfare. [editline]23rd January 2016[/editline] Another massive benefit to this kind of system is the lack of necessary bureaucracy. Instead of needing an agency for every type of welfare (food stamps, housing payments, child welfare, etc.) we would just need a single agency that sends a check out based on tax returns.
can we please get back to talking about how this is a good thing for people who don't want babies rather than a political shit-throwing contest about economics
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.