Planned Parenthood

Proven by whom? Serious question here, I've heard it claimed that this is the case, but I don't know that anyone provided proof or evidence of it (I mean, obviously it's been edited, but so are most videos by 60 Minutes and other generally reputable shows, doesn't make it propaganda or not propaganda).

On a related note, as I understand it, they put out the unedited transcript of the meetings, though I'm not 100% on this. Does that transcript provide this proof?

I asked before, if anyone had watched the videos in question. In large part becauseI haven't. I've seen parts of them, but I haven't watched them in their entirety. I don't know how much spin is there (or not) throughout the whole thing.

I just get the sense that most people commenting on this have also not watched them fully. And I don't think that's a particularly good state of affairs, or at least not conducive to good proper discussion, including discussing the veracity of the videos in question.

As opposed to the type of propaganda that does not hurt people?

Fair enough. But if I may, consider this:

When it comes to "change" such things do occur, albeit certainly not easily. For example, the "effectiveness" of corrupt government in large part comes from its persistence. If a corrupt bill or order or action gets seen through, exposed, and punished, then they don't simply stop and give up. SOPA, PIPA, etc. were shot down, but through things like TPP (which includes according to leaked documents many of the bad provisions of SOPA and PIPA and the like), or the FCC claiming regulatory control over the Internet, etc. it could potentially still have the corrupt aspects of it still be enacted. It's the persistence of the movement.

But if the "positive" were just as persistent, the "negative" wouldn't stand a chance. Indeed, we've seen manifestations of this through history. There was a persistent push to provide Black people "equality" in the eyes of the law. It took a heck of a long time, but by small and large measures, it was eventually enacted. While there are most certainly still issues with Racism in certain areas, the environment has become persistently hostile to acting on such (in some cases, possibly overly hostile but that's another discussion). The problem isn't "gone" or anything, but in those areas where the "change" occurred, where that hostility to corruption has manifested, the problem is vastly diminished.

Creating a persistent environment that is hostile to government corruption, more so than at present, could easily diminish the likelihood of corrupt officials (or at least "successful" corrupt officials). This, in turn, would change the circumstances you're describing. It wouldn't remove corruption entirely, and there might instead be a new place that such individuals end up being driven, but it would at least enact that small "change" in the status quo.


More directly to the point:

As you mentioned, it is unlikely at present for humans to stop procreating. Though it is worth noting that some demographics have started to have a negative "growth" rate due to sterility, proliferation of abortion, and general economic factors (not judging any of those now, just stating the facts). Side issue.

Whether abortion is legal or not legal doesn't change the likelihood of a given person to become a corrupt official, other than how it indirectly affects the of supply of people* relative to the number of slots the effects how likely someone is to get that slot (but it doesn't necessarily mean they'd be more or less likely to be corrupt in a different capacity/station, or even work to make themselves a "slot" or something). There's simply no reason to conclude that higher rates of abortion would reduce corruption in government, as that function is of persistence and power of each "side" in that "eternal" struggle.


*(Technically, access to abortion itself, while a strict limiting factor on pro-creation as a result of time, etc. would not inherently mean lower birth-rates than in an absence of abortion, as it's possible they'd still have the "average" number of children and simply abort the rest [or avoid further pregnancy through alternative means], and so on. However, it's been shown that demographics with higher rate of abortions generally have lower overall viable birth-rates. How much of this is a social thing, physiological, time constraints, etc. is unclear to me personally.)

 

If I am "technically" correct, then you are "technically" correct too.

Most of the folks that support unnatural termination of a fetus do so with clear limitations, and that is reflected in law. Most "yes" votes are highly conditional.

 

Though it does seem to be going in that direction if current trends hold true. I'm sure that the PP fiasco won't help regardless of how the investigation (provided one is actually ongoing) pans out, among other things.

On a related note:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170249/split-abortion-pro-choice-pro-life.aspx

Interestingly, the most striking split is on party lines, while those claiming Independent are roughly even. Which might say more about how pervasive party-politics is, and/or be a more defining factor than the final poll actually suggests.

It's not that recent though, so the trend may have shifted in some way or another.

The middle poll is also interesting, dealing with magnitude.

Speaking of magnitude, though this is more tangential, but there's also this: http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full

 

NOT what I said at all!

Scores of millions of adults do NOT want to pay for other peoples' abortions. If you want it, YOU pay for it!! Why should I have to pay for others' fudge ups? Discretion of the parent(s)? Only the woman decides. Not the partner. Not the fetus. The vast, vast majority of aborted fetuses are NOT due to "rap" e. Each and every fetus is miraculous. And the further along in development, the more awe inspiring. Do you get much joy from nature? (Not being snarky). How many 18 y/os have truly achieved awareness? What about 2 y/os? 1 y/os? Life or death. Black or white. Up or down. "Awareness" is NOT the standard. A fetus is alive, based on science and objectivity and such. It is inaccurate to say otherwise.

Gooberment abuses almost everyone constantly. The majority is perfectly happy forcing othes to do all kinds of immoral, wasteful, and dastardly things. Blowing up innocent muslims. Theft from makers to give to takers--ultra rich and dirt poor varieties. Insanity. I don't want to force everyone to "be good", but the majority seems to think this will work. It won't. It never has. Bullying as a standard practice, aint progress. Again, why do you appear to support theft from me so that your preferences can be carried out? Especially since I consider your preference on this topic to be immoral. How about the gooberment match the 528 million annual amount it gave to PP, and send it to me so I can spend it on something you find heinous? Fair is fair, right? Do you understand how this will play out if we--as human beings--don't find a better path? (Blood and horror).

 

Reading comprehension. I never made such a claim. If I believed it was the majority, I would have said so. I have posted enough for my style to be known.

 

Sok pretty much summed it up here. It might suck that tax dollars are not always spent to my liking, but you have to understand that the government (read: any government) is in a fairly difficult position when it comes to deciding where money gets allocated. Inevitably, some group or individual, somewhere in the country will dislike the government's choice. And due to the limitations of reality, there's absolutely nothing that can be done about that. Some people WILL be unhappy with the government's choices. It's impossible to please everyone, even if they happen to be a large number of people. Again, I don't believe apathy is the right choice either, but it's generally very difficult to make changes to laws that have any kind of moral ambiguity to them. Not only are people going to disagree, but they will change their mind, lose sight of the issue, become fanatical/unreasonable, etc.

I would like to think that, when it comes to the decision to have an abortion, both partners would have a say. In healthy, stable relationships, hard choices like this are best discussed thoroughly by both parties before any action is undertaken. It's true that the woman has the final say, since it is her body, but the feelings of the partner should NOT simply be discounted as irrelevant.

It could be because I've never been a parent, but I do not get much joy from looking at a fetus. I don't think they're miraculous, or special, or anything more than an amalgamation of genetic material that vaguely resembles a human. As far as nature goes, I can appreciate it for what it is and what it gives us, but joy? Nah, nature doesn't really do it for me; at least not for very long. I've been to the Grand Canyon, I've climbed mountains, explored the mines of Salzburg, hiked through the Rocky's, observed many a sunset........and after a few minutes of "hmm, that's nice" admiration of the scenery, I go back to what I was doing without a second thought. I guess you could say nature interests me on an analytical level, but not much beyond that.

When I brought up awareness, I wasn't referring to self-knowledge that comes with age. More like being aware that there is a world that exists beyond the self and that you can interact with it. Fetuses farther along in development have it, since they respond to sounds, touch, light, etc. but before a certain point, they aren't aware. They're just balls of flesh. It may be "alive" in the sense that it input from its environment will have an impact on its development, but beyond that I don't believe it could be called alive. It does not grow through its own metabolism (since it does not yet possess one), it does not reproduce in any way, and has no power of adaptation to its environment through changes originating internally.

And I suppose I should mention, there are very VERY few things I find outright heinous in this world. I could probably count them on one hand, in fact. Anything else I either the stance that seems logical, dismiss the matter as a gray area that will never be truly resolved, or I simply don't care about. So by all means, do what you please with my tax dollars. In the end, as long as it doesn't affect me personally, directly or indirectly, I couldn't care less. When it comes to the big issues, I usually have enough foresight to know when a matter will affect me in some way eventually, but the day-to-day stuff like abortion? Feh..........let the government abort as many fetuses as they want. The world has a population problem as it is; maybe mass abortions will help thin the herd a bit.

 

I wish PP was an exception to the rule, but it is par for the course in abusive/tyrannical government 101.

Taxes are forcibly collected, and increasingly wasted on pointless and/or immoral ventures. If our money--taxes--was mostly spent on worthwhile projects, I would be a much happier camper. But that is not our reality. Indoctrination by the Dept of "Education" is mandatory. And the only thing to show for it is declining scores and increased poverty. Money printing is worse than snorting cocaine a few times per day. The ruling class--oligarchy--continues to tighten its' bloody fist with ever increasing "patriotic" law enforcement here, and death to 1000s of innocent muslims abroad in the last decade. Sure, we kill terrorists too... but are we making progress?? The war on drugs and poverty is a bottomless pit of despair and fail. The more the gooberment intervenes, the worse the problems get.

It is not that I don't like a decision or 2 or 3 by the gooberment, but that I see the majority of the system as corrupt, evil, and regressive. The path of alleged good intentions we are pursuing will only lead to blood and horror for all of us. I wish more could see the matrix. But it has so many, and it won't let go. I will continue to support anyone and everyone that believes in liberty, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness. I will continue to oppose anyone and everyone that excuses away the status quo, and especially those intraspecies predators making bank off all this tyranny and fail.

I want the coming revolution to be political, but I fear that it will be military as per usual. The beast of military is dangerous for all.

Good night to you and yours. Peace, wisdom, and hope be with you.

 

I suppose part of the thing is, that you don't "need" to trade paying for people's abortions (or torture, or whatever gets your goat) for the ability to have public funds go towards infrastructure like road maintenance. And also that you don't need an over-arching centralized government for a lot of public projects.

For example, schools didn't used to receive Federal funding, but rather were under the auspices of local funding.

Indeed, while the idea of a Federal Income Tax is currently well and truly ingrained in the public as a "necessity" these days there didn't used to be one (of course, there were still other taxes, as well as other problems and things people complained about). Indeed, there didn't used to be a standing Army in the US.

The point being, that being able to have schools, roads, and water (and power, and transit security, and so on) does not necessitate, in and of itself, that tax funds go towards other things as well, or even that they be handled on a level above local State/Province/whatever.

Practically speaking, there are people that will try to get as much funding funneled towards themselves as they can, and there are politicians that will pander towards that to get votes. Put in amendments to throw out "pork" and whatnot even for questionable goals (I think someone funded with tax money a study to answer the question: "why are lesbians fat?" which has a number of problems right off...).

However, with a limited government, you can focus on having the Centralized Power help solidify the things everyone agrees on (or at least 90% of everyone or whatever), as well as to provide a check that Local Power doesn't abuse Human Rights (as Local Power provides a check that Centralized Power doesn't abuse Human Rights).

That way, if a State's People want it, they could have Local funding of Planned Parenthood or similar, less incriminated programs. While people without the funds to move to a different State (or if all States adopted it) might be a bit SoL it would still be relatively easier to deal with.

Anyway, I'm rambling, and not doing nearly a good enough job. But to sum up, there are a lot of ways to work towards getting/keeping the things you want without actually giving up that much; especially if you utilize, as was originally thought up for the US, a Limited Central Government.


Of course, with abortion specifically, it gets tricky.

On the one hand, most people (but sadly not all) support the right of a woman to choose when they would be willing to be impregnated. However even with precautions physics, criminals, etc. might not respect those rights. So how, when, and should that be "corrected"?

On the other hand, most people view ending human life as bad (even if just as a self-serving policy to encourage others not to kill them), especially of the "innocent". It's hard to get more "innocent" than a baby, born or otherwise. Of course, there's also the question of "when is it acceptable to cause the death of someone?" For example with triage and the like, executions, etc.

On the third hand, is the question of: "is it even a person?" There can be no doubt that it is living and human, but there is a question of "when does a person become a person?" Or in religious terms: "when is the indwelling of the Soul?" Is it at Conception? Is it at Birth? Is it after the first or second Trimester? Is it when the brain and heart have formed? Is it when it starts kicking/punching on it's own? Is it when they are 1-3 years old? Is it when they can understand and perceive the concept of being harmed? All of these ideas and more have been thrown around without any common conclusion reached.

On Vishnu's fourth hand... you get the idea.

 

there is more to life than 'what affects you'. Be a man and help shape the world into what it should be instead of letting the lowest common denominators decide.

 

Indeed. I never said any of it is cut and dry and I specifically said there would still be problems. But the point is that by having de-centralized local power be where it's decided/implemented, it's easier for people to come to whatever compromises they need (or to try and get to a different area that is more to their liking). With a Centralized Government there is no particular incentive to do more than try and please your district's voters, but your actions can impact the entire nation.

Hypothetical: Say your district predominantly wants Nuclear Power, but the nation predominantly does not. Short of ambitions to run for a larger office (President, namely) or run from a different district/state/whatever you've got no particular reason to listen to the rest of the nation. Now, normally, you'd get written off by the others trying to please their constituency, but practically speaking it may be more expedient for them to let your amendments through or whatever or trade on favors.

If such an action was carried out through Local Power only at least the rest of the nation's tax money wouldn't go towards it (well, unless they wanted to set up redundant safeties in addition to the Local Power's safeties through Central Power in order to try and make sure it doesn't go all Fukushima on them, but in the real world that hardly seems to be a concern for politicians anymore... for some unfathomable reason. Of course, setting up redundancies could have it's own problems and issues, such as if it creates an agency which is later used to grab up power or be a lever of corruption, etc.).

As you can see, it doesn't solve all the problems, but it makes it much easier to manage. It minimizes the issues.

It also has the benefit of helping make economic shortfalls segmented by State/district/Province/whatever and not by default be saddled around the entire nation.

If some corrupt or inept politician/official puts the government into Debt by reckless spending and/or improper tax collection/use, than it only affects that State rather than the Nation as a whole, provided the Nation as a whole doesn't go all bone-headed and try to bail the State out and put themselves at risk if the State defaults. In other words, as long as it doesn't act like Germany or the World Bank to Greece it'd be relatively fine. (Keyword being relatively.)

Hmm, I wonder what has killed more people, anarchy, or government? That's not a rhetorical question, though I don't know that there's any way to find the answer at this time. This is only one side and a bit old (that website format... man, I kind of miss web-counters), but it's quite interesting: https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.HTM Of course, it also includes both strong and weak governments and is by no means a complete list.

For what it's worth, I'm personally not talking about weak Local government (except in certain areas). Only a weak Central government (except in certain areas). Provided within a framework that forces all Governments to recognize various basic human rights.

A separation of powers and responsibilities, and also of who gets taxed for what.


Regardless of Large or Small, of Weak or Strong, of Central or Local... I think the most important part of having a "good" government is that the People be active in filtering, controlling, and when necessary, changing the Government, rather than simply abdicating that sort of responsibility entirely to the Politicians. That is, rather than be indifferent, or accepting of corruption, to actively make it difficult for it to work out in favor of the corrupt. To have the population be active and well informed. And empowered.

Which is not a challenge of Government (indeed, the corrupt have a vested interest in making sure the Government does NOT help on that end, and actively works to make sure people are passive, ignorant, and disempowered), but of Society.

 

anarchy has nowhere near the time- government always emerges. we're hierarchical creatures, we can't help it.