roydo
in memoriam - 1965-2024
Wow. In all circumstances?
Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon
- Thread starter kithnou
- Start date
- Status
Wow. In all circumstances?
Well clearly not. I'm specifically talking about abortion as birth control. Meaning, abortion in cases where personal responsibility would have sufficed in almost all cases. Which, again, is most abortions.
I should probably clarify that while I'm pro-life, I'm not necessarily for immediate abortion regulation. I think it'd be pretty disastrous for the country to suddenly ban abortion by force. But I do want to see America collectively decide that it's a practice that should be far, far more rare than it is, and if that can ultimately lead to less availability of the practice, the better.
roydo
in memoriam - 1965-2024
So are anti abortion, but not. Or on your terms. You are pro Life, but not always. It would be a disaster to ban abortion, and you see abortion as actual birth control.
Again. Wow.
We might actually agree on something LOL!! Well partially haha!!
I am not pro life and i do think women should have the right to decide things that affect their body BUT....
I know several people who when in their early 20's while at college here in the US, had more than one abortion.... Yes that's more than one 'mistake'.
This i do not agree with at all.
It should be allowed but regulated and only used when there is a victim. As in the mother could die, she was raped and if she was underage (not rape as partner also underage).
There could be more stipulations i am sure but yes its way too easy to get them here in the US
In saying that though in the predominantly red states there are way too many teen pregnancies because of the lack of support (religious belief mainly) for abortion and the lack of facilities (being banned). Oh and a lack of sex ed. I posted the stats about 40 or 50 pages ago i think.
Religion should not dictate this. Science and government and logic should.
I am from Ireland as many off you know where it is illegal because of the Church. This to me is antiquated. We need to move on from Church inspired laws and views and accept more and more people do not agree with them.
Do you believe that the government should provide the ability to get heathcare for those who cant afford it? Because they rate of child mortality and death of the mother during child birth has increased on par with decreased abortion availability. Texas now has the highest child mortality rate in the developed world while deaths during childbirth have increased 3 fold in the last 20 years.
Abortion is a thorny issue, but when you restrict abortion, you inevitably restrict other womens health and maternity services. If you dont provide any means for poor people to get healthcare, you also add to the problem.
You're basically condemning poor people, while blaming them for making poor decisions.
Goodness. Does this sort of lame attempt at snark come naturally, or did you work at it?
I'm pro-life in that I think abortion is wrong. I think drugs are bad too, but AMAZINGLY TO YOU I'M SURE, I don't necessarily favor banning everything I disagree with. Does that leave you equally aghast?
"you see abortion as actual birth control" - Pardon? I think abortion should not be used as "birth control." That's what I stated originally, and despite clarification, you're still struggling with the concept.
Yes i knew i missed one from my list of acceptable women unable to care for a child as in being too poor and no support etc. should also be included in acceptable that i can agree with. Within reason of course as in they need to learn from the first one and be better at being careful.
In a vacuum, it's not a problem. In a bubble, we shouldn't expect that poor people can't care for the children they have. Again, in theory, we should expect poor people to avoid children they can't afford.
But you're right, it's a practical consideration. Not sure what the answer is, or if one is necessary for the moment (because I'm not actually proposing flooding the country with new unwanted children). It's a fundamental issue in conservatism. Most of us, believe it or not, don't want children to suffer. But we don't want to prop up a system whereby half the country has to support and pay for whatever the other half decides to do. I think it's an understandable predicament, no?
But if you look at teen pregnancy rate and i bet then delve further into support by the government to help them it would appear conservative states are the ones with the biggest issues just in teens alone.
Like Ruairi mentioned you cut the services there goes education and prevention. Get rid of abortion and you are stuck with the child. Someone has to look after it and pay for it.
The biggest detractors to welfare support are the right. Yet i bet the most benefits given by the government are to states controlled and that have the majority of conservatives. Simply because although inner cities and urban areas have issues as well documented so do rural areas if not more so.
This is were common sense and bipartisan politics needs to work.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/teen-births/teenbirths.htm
There is no question that the south and similarly conservative dominated regions use up resources. Of course, it would be foolish to pretend the entirety, or even most, of those folks are actually conservatives.
But nonetheless, conservatives are around and their states benefit, more or less, from welfare spending. I think most of them, as I do, agree with some safety net but think what we do in the US in that regard is overbroad and inefficient.
“The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but can not do at all, or can not so well do, for themselves – in their separate, and individual capacities.”
For me, providing healthcare falls under this umbrella. And part of health care covers womens reproductive rights.
If you want a long term solution, start investing in education, and not Betsy DeVoss's religious charter schools.
It may ultimately, I'm not sure it should. And if it ultimately does, I think it's in that category in part because we made it so. For example, requiring emergency medical care, a noble cause no doubt, unsurprisingly drives up the costs on providers which are then passed on to consumers. If you're independent, you don't have negotiating power, etc.
We do invest in education. America spends as much or more per capita (or is close to the top, depending on the metric used) among developed countries. Maybe you meant "invest" in a non-monetary sense, and if so, I agree. But that involves a lot of things you and I don't control, most likely.
While you people are arguing over important matters, this story:
Stormy Daniels Once Claimed She Spanked Donald Trump With a Forbes Magazine
At his request
I think I need a lie down
Stormy Daniels Once Claimed She Spanked Donald Trump With a Forbes Magazine
At his request
I think I need a lie down
Last week, the Wall Street Journal triggered a new scandal for President Donald Trump when it reported that his lawyer, Michael Cohen, had paid porn star Stormy Daniels $130,000 to keep quiet about a decade-old sexual relationship she had with the future president. Cohen released a statement from Daniels denying she had engaged in any “sexual and/or romantic affair” with Trump. But immediately other accounts emerged challenging that denial.
Slate’s Jacob Weisberg reported that in 2016, Daniels, whose given name is Stephanie Clifford, told him that in 2006 she and Trump began a sexual relationship that lasted nearly a year. The Daily Beast published a story citing friends of Daniels saying she had told them about a fling with Trump. In Touch published an interview with Daniels from 2011 in which she herself described having a sexual affair with Trump. And Mother Jones has learned that Daniels years earlier talked about having had a sexual relationship with Trump—and in lurid detail. According to 2009 emails between political operatives who were at the time advising Daniels on a possible political campaign, the adult film actor and director claimed that her affair with Trump included an unusual act: spanking him with a copy of Forbes magazine.
In early 2009, Daniels announced that she was considering challenging Sen. David Vitter, the Louisiana Republican who two years earlier had been snared in a sex scandal. Vitter’s phone number was discovered in the records of the so-called D.C. Madam, who ran a prostitution ring in the nation’s capital. Vitter, who now is a lobbyist, was a prominent social conservative who opposed abortion and gay marriage. Daniels, who grew up in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, told reporters she wanted to highlight his hypocrisy. She offered up a potential campaign slogan: “Stormy Daniels: Screwing people honestly.”
Daniels was serious enough about running that she embarked on a May 2009 “listening tour” of the state and held discussions with local political consultants. Those conversations included coming up with possible campaign contributors. According to a May 8, 2009, email written by an operative advising Daniels, who asked not to be identified, Daniels at one point scrolled through her cellphone contacts to provide her consultants with a list of names. The email noted that the potential donors included Steve Hirsch, the founder of an adult entertainment company; Theresa Flynt, the daughter of Hustler’s Larry Flynt; Frazier Boyd, the owner of a strip club chain; and Jenna Jameson, the so-called “Queen of Porn.” Also on the list: Donald Trump.
This email was sent to Andrea Dubé, a Democratic political consultant based in New Orleans. In response, Dubé expressed surprise that Daniels was friendly with Trump. “Donald Trump?” she wrote. “In her cell phone?”
“Yep,” the other consultant replied. “She says one time he made her sit with him for three hours watching ‘shark week.’ Another time he had her spank him with a Forbes magazine.”
Dubé and the other consultant confirmed to Mother Jones they exchanged these emails.
The campaign consultant who wrote the email to Dubé tells Mother Jones that Daniels said the spanking came during a series of sexual and romantic encounters with Trump and that it involved a copy of Forbes with Trump on the cover.
A fall 2006 cover of Forbes does feature Trump and two of his children, Donald Jr. and Ivanka.
In her seven-year-old interview with In Touch—which was only published this week—Daniels described Trump obsessively watching Shark Week in his hotel room during one of their visits. (In several tweets in 2013, Trump expressed strong views on sharks.) Daniels also noted that the first time she met Trump—at a July 2006 celebrity golf tournament—he invited her to his hotel room and boastfully showed off a magazine cover featuring himself—before they had sex.
Cohen told the Wall Street Journal there had been no affair between Trump and Daniels: “These rumors have circulated time and again since 2011. President Trump once again vehemently denies any such occurrence as has Ms. Daniels.” But Cohen did not address the alleged $130,000 payout—a claim especially serious because it raises the issue of whether the president could be blackmailed or influenced by someone who possessed information about any untoward personal behavior he might have engaged in. So far, Daniels’ only denial of a sexual relationship with Trump has come via the statement that Cohen released in her name.
Cohen did not reply to a request for comment. Neither did Daniels, her lawyer, or her former agent. White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders responded, “Would refer you back to comments given during the campaign on this. We have nothing new to add.”
According to Weisberg, Daniels in 2016 told him that her lawyer, Keith Davidson, had negotiated a hush-money arrangement with Cohen that did not include the real names of the parties, and she said she was concerned Trump was stalling on the deal and would fail to pay her. About a week before the election, Daniels stopped responding to calls and texts from Weisberg.
Fox News last year reportedly spiked a story that included an on-the-record statement from Daniels’ manager at the time, Gina Rodriguez, confirming that her client had engaged in a sexual relationship with Trump.
Daniels is one of several women associated with pornography who have claimed to have had sexual encounters with Trump. In 2016, porn star Jessica Drake said thatTrump had kissed her without her consent and offered her $10,000 for sex. On November 4, 2016, the Journal reported that the National Enquirer, owned by Trump pal David Pecker, paid former Playboy centerfold Karen McDougal $150,000 for the rights to her account of a 10-month-long affair with Trump and then published no story on the purported relationship.
- Status