published Sunday, December 11th, 2011

Plan B

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

92
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
onetinsoldier said...

Not equipped to comment. Lets see who thinks they are?

December 11, 2011 at 12:09 a.m.
dude_abides said...

tu quoque... does every single post of yours, by design, have to take a position of superiority? Bet you $10,000 you cannot abstain from criticizing or belittling for a day.

Love,

Mitt

December 11, 2011 at 12:48 a.m.

I'm qualifed. I have an underage daughter. The government needs to butt out of our private lives.

December 11, 2011 at 12:54 a.m.
alprova said...

chattanoogatennesseeusa wrote: "I'm qualifed. I have an underage daughter. The government needs to butt out of our private lives."

Oh..so by your comment, I take it that you're upset with the Government's reversal of the decision to allow underage girls to be able to purchase an abortion pill, amending their decision to now require a doctor's prescription for girls under the age of 18 to be able to purchase a dose of Plan B?

Am I further to understand that you're a-okay with your underage daughter having sex, possibly getting knocked up, and being able to purchase an emergency abortion over the counter, all without your parental knowledge?

Wow. Are you sure that you're qualified?

December 11, 2011 at 1:19 a.m.
carlB said...

Clay, There are many things to think about on this "cartoon." There are people who do not want their kids to have any sex education as if this is going to prevent them from having "sex" without protection. This puts "some" of the teenagers in farther separation/isolation of communication with their parents. This condition is bad enough, but when there is a pregnant unwed teenager the parents' of the male and female need to be communicating with everybody now. Choices will have to be made and keeping the choices legal puts the PLAN C out of business.

Like all of your cartoons with all of the many issues taking place, they provide the needed thought provoking subjects, bringing out surprising opinions from a lot of people.

December 11, 2011 at 1:21 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

If Mr Bennett opposes pigpen abortuaries, is he glad the one on Vance Road was shut down? The murder of little babies is evil, and so is fornication, and so is lustful staring, and so is disobedience to triune Jehovah. Thank Him for those who deal with ugly symptoms: "Choices"/AAA Women's Services in Chattanooga, LifeDynamics nationally in a different way. But let us tackle the disease as well. Anyone reading the Bible knows it deals with sex--Genesis 3, I Corinthians 5-7 and a good deal else, including Song of Solomon. Preach the truth, including this. Biblical sex education says keep sex inside holy marriage, and sex sins, like any other sins, can be repented of and forgiven unto Heaven and later "the resurrection of life," or stuck with unto condemnation, Hell, and later "the resurrection of damnation."

December 11, 2011 at 1:57 a.m.

Huh? Hey, Mr., how do you read all that from my post? I didn't say any of that. The government has no business dealing with abortion, birth control, doing what parents are supposed to do. It's not their function. Odunderhead and his glutenous wife are obsessed with our personal lives. "WE CAN'T JUST LEAVE IT UP TO THE PARENTS" is what Michelle Obama said about parents packing school lunches for their kids. Whether is sexual matters or school lunches it's none of the governments business. This, Obama has passion for, but not economic matters? What a crappy president. They'll do anything to usurp parental authority and undermine. You micromanaging Lefties can go &%$# yourselves. I hate your vision. Government snakes sneaking around parents to get children to have abortions, children buying abortion pills off the shelf, schools instructing children about sex when they should be concentrating on math and reading, and schools handing out condoms.

December 11, 2011 at 2:38 a.m.

Exactly right Tu_quoque! Always trying to get children to do things without their parents knowledge or consent. "It takes a village" , huh? Not in my house.

December 11, 2011 at 2:42 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

AndrewLohr, I'm glad to hear you talking about sex education in the Bible. We all need to turn to the "good book" for a moral compass, especially regarding sex. For those of you needing spiritual guidance in the morally upright way to rape a woman or to treat a rape victim, particularly one who is a non-believer, I offer you these verses:

2 Samuel 12: 11-14... "Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.' " “Then David said to Nathan, 'I have sinned against the Lord.' Nathan answered David: 'The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die.' " (The child dies seven days later.)

That was God talking to David. Here we have rape, polygamy, and baby killing sanctioned by God. It's all okay as long as you are one of God's "chosen." Meanwhile the women victims have no worth whatsoever in God's eyes. Yaaay! Misogyny rules!

Zechariah 14: 1-2... "Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city."

Take heart, all you perverted potential rapists. It is perfectly okay to "ravish" non-believing women, as long as you are one of God's "chosen." Just believe and you've got a ticket to rape, pillage, and plunder. Pretty cool, huh?

Deuteronomy 22: 28-29... "If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."

Rejoice, dear rapists! A mere slap on the wrist is all that God will demand of you for your lasciviousness. Just pay a small fee and your victim is legally yours to do with as you please forever and ever amen. And your victim obviously has no rights at all (don't you just love that part?!)

There are many other verses where our loving father shows his godly, "chosen" men the way to rape, ravish, and otherwise enjoy women for our express pleasure, but I will offer up these few verses for now as a means of providing some basic guidance. Enjoy! As for you women, I guess you're just SOL, huh?

December 11, 2011 at 3:55 a.m.
eeeeeek said...

Plan D - hanger

December 11, 2011 at 5:34 a.m.
EaTn said...

The most reliable form of a female birth control is a simple aspirin, take one and hold firmly between the knees.

December 11, 2011 at 6:10 a.m.
dougmusn said...

When I talk to parents of 15 year old children (both in the room)--full disclosure: I am a Navy physician--I will say something along these lines:

"I am certain (Mom/Dad) you would be concerned if your 15 year old (son/daughter) were having sex at this time. Consider this: in 20 years, I would expect you to be concerned if your child were NOT having sex--'Am I to be a grandparent at any time?' The question, then, about sex is not WHETHER but WHEN. It's time (and perhaps past time) to talk with your child about how we make this decision. You have obviously made this choice at least 16 years ago. I consider my role as an advocate for health to provide credible and correct information and facts to answer any questions your child wishes to ask along the lines of 'If you do A, B is likely to follow'. I do not take a position for or against any choice--I do have an opinion and would share it if asked. Positions (the SHOULDs) come from the values you and your child learn and discuss both at home and in your spiritual lives. {If a daughter} -- Consider the ways your daughter might tell you she were sexually active:

  • You have an open and frank discussion and she tells you
  • She runs away, returning a year later with a child
  • She gets an STD and without treatment, gets worse (e.g. HIV)
  • She tells you she is pregnant

My question to you is this: Which choice do you prefer?

--new comments--

@EaTn/0610: The between the knees aspirin is a nice joke but does not work -- look up "frotage" -- the only safe sex is PHONE SEX.

@AndrewLohr: Yes, the Bible has a lot of instruction and advice. Open any daily paper and I can almost guarantee you will find many violations of the Ten Commandments. If people followed my advice, I would be out of business--no alcoholism, no obesity, less diabetes, no cervical cancer, much less colon/lung/liver/skin cancer, no murder, no mayhem. I will be very busy as long as I am in practice.

December 11, 2011 at 7:08 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

If Plan B is safe for girls under 17 to use (no dangers of overuse, etc.) then it should be available without a prescription. If a family is in complete control of its teenage children, it has nothing to fear, right? (sarcasm intended-even good parents that have good communication with their teens will find that their teens make poor choices.) If you provide your teen with the appropriate support, you as a parent can help them out of such a fix by getting them the prescription through your family doctor. But not all families are this functional.

Opponents of abortion should be pushing for plan B to be available everywhere and to everyone if ending abortion is truly what they want. However, if their anti-abortion sentiments are based on making people suffer ALL the consequences of their irresponsible sex, not on saving the unborn, then this opposition to plan B makes perfect sense.

December 11, 2011 at 7:55 a.m.
fairmon said...

How many actually believe unavailability will result in abstinence for girls under 17? How many believe availability will result in more girls under 17 being sexually active? Who is lobbying to have the pill available to girls under 17 by script only? Follow the money. Is this another case of an immoral congress attempting to legislate morals?

December 11, 2011 at 8:41 a.m.
alprova said...

chattanoogatennesseeusa wrote: "Huh? Hey, Mr., how do you read all that from my post? I didn't say any of that. The government has no business dealing with abortion, birth control, doing what parents are supposed to do. It's not their function."

While you may be a fine parent to your children, there are a bunch of folks who don't measure up to the task.

"Odunderhead and his glutenous wife are obsessed with our personal lives. "WE CAN'T JUST LEAVE IT UP TO THE PARENTS" is what Michelle Obama said about parents packing school lunches for their kids."

Are you even remotely aware of the number of kids that rely upon the schools for a decent meal two times a day? Again, you may feed your kids fine, but there are those out there who have problems that you don't have.

"Whether is sexual matters or school lunches it's none of the governments business."

Well, no one else is stepping up to the plate.

"This, Obama has passion for, but not economic matters? What a crappy president. They'll do anything to usurp parental authority and undermine."

Let me ask you a serious question. Do you remember when you were a teenager? Did your parents know everything you did? Did you share with them everything you were up to? Did you ever make any rash decisions without consulting with them? Sure you did.

"You micromanaging Lefties can go &%$# yourselves. I hate your vision. Government snakes sneaking around parents to get children to have abortions, children buying abortion pills off the shelf, schools instructing children about sex when they should be concentrating on math and reading, and schools handing out condoms."

So you think that handing out condoms is a function of our schools and a total solution to the problem of teen pregnancy, without sex education to go along with it?

The controversy over "Plan B" goes back to the Bush Administration. It hit the market in 2003. The FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) was the entity pushing for the drug to be available over the counter to girls of reproductive ages.

US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is the person who denied OTC status for the drug.

Here...read an accurate report on what actually took place regarding the process and which parties were involved. Half of the reports have the President being at the center of the controversy, which is patently false;

http://www.pharmacist.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Pharmacy_News&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=27393

December 11, 2011 at 8:50 a.m.
alprova said...

AndrewLohr wrote: "The murder of little babies is evil, and so is fornication, and so is lustful staring, and so is disobedience to triune Jehovah."

Well, about 100% of all of us are guilty of the last two sins.

"Biblical sex education says keep sex inside holy marriage, and sex sins, like any other sins, can be repented of and forgiven unto Heaven and later "the resurrection of life," or stuck with unto condemnation, Hell, and later "the resurrection of damnation."..."

Biblical education is an abysmal failure, when it comes to this issue Andrew. Study after painstaking study has proven time and again that schools that prescribe abstinence-only sex education programs in have significantly higher teenage pregnancy and birth rates, as well as STD infections, than those with more comprehensive sex education programs, that educate children to human reproduction, including safe sexual health practices to prevent unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases as well. You're not going to read any of that in a Bible.

Preventing unwanted pregnancy should be the primary goal of every pro-lifer out there. God provided each and every one of us with a healthy appetite for sex. In our teens, the desire to satisfy that desire is in overdrive.

You can remove the opportunity to be able to take advantage of that desire by locking up your kids in a room for ten years or so and never letting them out of your sight, but short of that, a comprehensive sex education class provided by educators is the next best answer to the problem of teen pregnancy.

Plan B should be a choice made when all other preventative methods to prevent pregnancy have failed.

I will guarantee you that as each of us write our opinions, there are teenagers in this nation passing out these little pills like they do aspirin for a headache.

December 11, 2011 at 9:24 a.m.

None of what you say justifies the government intruding into my life and making decisions for my family. It's just more libspeak. Wacko logic and control freak policies created with "good intentions". No politico or the bureaucrats they install for life have any business subverting my parental authority. Just because something could happen doesn't mean the government has the right to step in and take over. So much damn time is wasted by our government trying to control everything from small businesses to the bodies of teen girls/children. The liberal mind is wacked. A child should be able to purchase abortion pills and have an abortion without parental consent, yet a parent can't even be trusted to pack a school lunch for their child?

December 11, 2011 at 9:28 a.m.
alprova said...

chattanoogatennesseeusa wrote: "None of what you say justifies the government intruding into my life and making decisions for my family."

No one is doing anything of the sort. As I understand it, you, as a parent, have every right to not have your children attend sex-education classes.

"It's just more libspeak. Wacko logic and control freak policies created with "good intentions". No politico or the bureaucrats they install for life have any business subverting my parental authority."

That is a baseless charge.

"Just because something could happen doesn't mean the government has the right to step in and take over. So much damn time is wasted by our government trying to control everything from small businesses to the bodies of teen girls/children."

You're not that bright, are you? How is regulating how a drug akin to controlling the bodies of anyone? In this case, the drug itself is marketed as an answer to a case where the bodies themselves are out of control.

"The liberal mind is wacked. A child should be able to purchase abortion pills and have an abortion without parental consent, yet a parent can't even be trusted to pack a school lunch for their child?"

Your first problem is assuming that all or that only liberals are on board with abortion to begin with.

And as I pointed out earlier, there are way too many parents who do not pack lunches for their kids, or who pack completely inappropriate foods in those lunches, when they do.

December 11, 2011 at 10:01 a.m.
memphisexile said...

I don't agree with it, but I think the reality is that someone under 18 will just get a friend over 18 to buy it for them. This changes nothing. Instead of worrying about what other people's kids are doing, worry about yourself and your own family. As always, conservatives don't want the government involved in people's lives or telling them what to do, UNLESS it gels with their moral view of the world. Hypocrisy as always.

December 11, 2011 at 10:10 a.m.

"or who pack completely inappropriate foods in those lunches"

Well let's mobilize!!

That sums up it up pretty well. We just can't be trusted and need bureaucrats to step in and show us the right way. We can't be trusted with money decisions, salt, food choices, cars, education, and dozens of other things, but for some reason our children should be able to make decisions about abortion and be influenced by other people rather than their parents regarding that. It's also vital, according to many school districts, that small children learn the basics of homosexual sex.

Why don't we just turn over every decision to the government. How about monitoring how we wipe our bottoms. You think that's just ridiculous? I don't. Cheryl Crow actually said we should use one square when we wipe. "Except for those pesky occasions when we might need more."

There's going to be a revolution in this country. It's going to be about making sure the Constitution remains what it was designed to be, about what the federal government can't do to us.

Liberals have a fundamental disrespect for the choices citizens make regarding most things, no matter how basic.

December 11, 2011 at 10:54 a.m.
dude_abides said...

AndrewLORD... How do you account (being a Bible literalist) for the problems rickaroo has illustrated for you? I've never seen a reply from you on this dilemma. You usually just disappear, I've noticed, and resurrect yourself a few days later.

tu_quoque... You sure seemed to be playing down when you carefully constructed that "ditty" several days ago! Hey, bet you $10,000 you won't try another one! I can tell from your attack that you're either wealthy or an accountant. Do you "own" a bunch of money? LOL

December 11, 2011 at 10:57 a.m.
dude_abides said...

Alprova is the only person here who has brought up Sebelius, whom I believe this cartoon is actually about. Some would consider her, and by extension, Obama, a sellout.

December 11, 2011 at 11:01 a.m.
bret said...

And I thought Mr. Lohr was a Libertarian? Surely, he isn't suggesting that government interfere with an individual's right to choose, is he?

December 11, 2011 at 11:04 a.m.
fairmon said...

There is no good logic for denying anyone that can buy other over the counter meds the right to purchase plan B. There is good logic for making the instructions clear and in no less than 10 font so anyone that can read is able to read them.

How could anyone supporting free choice and abortion not support making plan B available for purchase by anyone. I would support giving a voucher to purchase plan B to anyone receiving welfare such as food stamps, section 8 housing and medical care.

December 11, 2011 at 11:40 a.m.
LibDem said...

I don't understand. Are we saying requiring a prescription is government interference? If the government backs off and allows the purchaser to decide, is that then non-interference? Is chattanoogatennesseeusa advocating for the government to back away and let the shopper decide?

I do understand that pregnancy and bearing unwanted children is a just punishment for evil teenagers, and that abortion would permit the little evildoers to escape the retribution. And, of course, the evil babies need the years of abuse to keep them straight.

December 11, 2011 at 11:47 a.m.
fairmon said...

alp said....

And as I pointed out earlier, there are way too many parents who do not pack lunches for their kids, or who pack completely inappropriate foods in those lunches, when they do.

I agree those children without the ability to obtain a good meal should be provided one at least three times a day. Parents not providing healthy meals should be educated but not dictated. Why is this a federal government issue instead of a local and state issue? Where in the constitution is the power to dictate to citizens around school lunches enumerated to the federal government?

December 11, 2011 at 11:52 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

bret said... "And I thought Mr. Lohr was a Libertarian? Surely, he isn't suggesting that government interfere with an individual's right to choose, is he?"

What an idiot you are bret. By your logic libertarians support an individual's right to kill someone else. How intellectually vapid can you be?

December 11, 2011 at 12:25 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

So, BPR, am I correct in thinking you equate Plan B with murder?

December 11, 2011 at 12:34 p.m.
Lr103 said...

Clay did it again!! That depection of the backroom jackleg doctor is hilarious. Serious, and at the same time hilarious

December 11, 2011 at 1:35 p.m.
acerigger said...

Kids can't buy alcohol nor tobacco products and it's all because of government control over their lives. It's time to roll back their interference with "freedom"!

December 11, 2011 at 1:43 p.m.
porkchop3xpress said...

I love how on all of these there are maybe half a dozen actual comments on the cartoon. The rest are just really bitter and hateful people fighting. Great cartoon, Clay.

December 11, 2011 at 3:11 p.m.
alprova said...

Harp3339 wrote: "Where in the constitution is the power to dictate to citizens around school lunches enumerated to the federal government?"

The Preamble and Article 1, Section 8 both contain the words "provide for the common defense, [and] promote the general welfare [of the United States]".

I think that covers it nicely.

December 11, 2011 at 3:49 p.m.
alprova said...

Harp3339 wrote: "I would support giving a voucher to purchase plan B to anyone receiving welfare such as food stamps, section 8 housing and medical care."

Harp, you're slipping. You forgot to mention that you are for a free trip to the hospital to undergo a hysterectomy for welfare recipients and those who live in Section 8 housing.

December 11, 2011 at 3:51 p.m.
alprova said...

Harp 3339 wrote: "Why is this a federal government issue instead of a local and state issue?"

Because local and state governments, for the most part, are not interested in getting the job done. The USDA has been sponsoring education about food choices for decades.

It's a never ending battle, and they are losing. Americans are fatter than ever. Wise food choices and healthy eating begins during childhood. If you don't nail it down then, a child grows up eating unhealthy for the rest of their life.

Why not face the fact that the states look to the Federal Government to fund them too. They depend upon funds from the Fed to pay for just about everything these days. From education, to indigent medical care costs, to school lunches, the states line up like new-born puppies suckling their mama's teat.

And it's been that way for quite some time now.

December 11, 2011 at 4:11 p.m.
alprova said...

porkchop3xpress wrote: "I love how on all of these there are maybe half a dozen actual comments on the cartoon. The rest are just really bitter and hateful people fighting."

Maybe you didn't get the memo.

Cartoons are usually drawn to get people to think about an issue or perhaps about other related issues. In this forum, conversations often take on a life of their own.

We don't usually just stick to just discussing the cartoon.

December 11, 2011 at 4:45 p.m.
rolando said...

It says, "promote the general walfare", alprova and not "dictate and enforce" it.

December 11, 2011 at 4:48 p.m.
hambone said...

I'm confused, again.

The subject of the cartoon is about the government not allowing girls under 17 to buy Plan B over the counter.

Yet Chattanooga-francis-trollmonkey doesn't like government telling him what to do.

Does he want his daughter to be able to buy Plan B without him knowing?

December 11, 2011 at 5:13 p.m.
fairmon said...

alprova responded to the constitutionality of the federal government intervening without scientific data supporting the magic that must happen when a female turns 17 with....

provide for the common defense, [and] promote the general welfare [of the United States]". I think that covers it nicely.

That is a stretch and could allow a dictatorship with more and more dictated choices based on what some politician considers "for the greater good" if interpreted as you suggest. What about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In the pursuit why not allow people to make their own choice when there is no risk to the general welfare of other citizens of the United States.

I keep wondering why politicians think they must protect the ignorant from harming themselves with laws like seat belts and motorcycle helmets that protect only the dumb ass opting not to wear them. How is the country better off making sure those too stupid to wear protective gear survive? Child restraints and under age passenger protection and strict enforcement is very logical.

December 11, 2011 at 5:22 p.m.
fairmon said...

alprova said....

Why not face the fact that the states look to the Federal Government to fund them too. They depend upon funds from the Fed to pay for just about everything these days. From education, to indigent medical care costs, to school lunches, the states line up like new-born puppies suckling their mama's teat.

And it's been that way for quite some time now.

I agree and the federal level has been all too glad to use that state and local subservience to manipulate and make them pawns of the federal government. The federal government, like a trainer of dogs, is willing to borrow an unlimited amount to keep using treats to train people. What happens when there is no more money for treats?

December 11, 2011 at 5:31 p.m.
fairmon said...

alpro said....

Harp, you're slipping. You forgot to mention that you are for a free trip to the hospital to undergo a hysterectomy for welfare recipients and those who live in Section 8 housing.

Tubal Ligation would work and should be provided for those desiring such but can't afford it. A tax payer funded abortion should require agreeing to such or use the option to pay for your own. Spare me the lecture about how some very small percent do better later and can not proliferate. That can happen but is rare, what I avocate is "for the general welfare" and "the greater good".

December 11, 2011 at 5:45 p.m.
fairmon said...

There is a major difference in being for or against something and being for pro-choice. Being pro-choice does not mean you are for abortion. It only means you don't consider yourself Solomon of what choice is best or that your personal choice is better for everyone.

December 11, 2011 at 5:55 p.m.
dude_abides said...

harp... are you suggesting the government enter an agreement with a teenage girl to cash in her reproductive rights in exchange for an abortion? In keeping with that mentality, we could probably find a few people who would be willing to have babies, for money, that could be used to harvest organs for transplants for the insured.

December 11, 2011 at 6:08 p.m.
alprova said...

Rolando wrote: "It says, "promote the general walfare", alprova and not "dictate and enforce" it."

Definition of the word "Promote": Further the progress of (something, esp. a cause, venture, or aim); support or actively encourage.

And that is exactly what the Government does, when it pertains to providing healthy meals to children, when it provides funds to schools, when it provides education about eating healthy, etc.

People that desire to avail themselves of a Government provided service are not "dictated" or "enforced" to do so. Anyone is free to decline any and all assistance for themselves and their children. It's provided for those that do desire some assistance.

As it pertains to this issue, good little girls who keep their pants on will never be worried about their access to that little pill. So how in the world is the Government "dictating" or "enforcing" a thing, when it comes to this issue?

I can't believe that some Conservatives are arguing against the Government providing Plan B to girls under the age of 17, over the counter. This is further proof of the fact that nothing under the sun that our current administration does or takes a stand on is good enough for them.

You folks are actually arguing in favor of an abortion that comes in a box for children under the age of consent, simply because the Government has decided that it is a bad idea to open up the market in order to purchase it by kids. Go figure.

December 11, 2011 at 7:36 p.m.
alprova said...

Harp3339 wrote: "Tubal Ligation would work and should be provided for those desiring such but can't afford it. A tax payer funded abortion should require agreeing to such or use the option to pay for your own. Spare me the lecture about how some very small percent do better later and can not proliferate. That can happen but is rare, what I avocate is "for the general welfare" and "the greater good"."

You're out there on that ledge all by yourself. Nowhere have I read of anyone else, including our politicians, that agree with your position on that, at least openly.

You have about as much right and an invitation to determine what happens to women's reproductive organs, as religious Conservatives do. And that would be none.

Some people have no shame at all.

December 11, 2011 at 7:48 p.m.
alprova said...

Harp 3339 wrote: "There is a major difference in being for or against something and being for pro-choice. Being pro-choice does not mean you are for abortion."

Not to split hairs with you, but the common definition of someone who identifies themselves as being "pro-choice" when it comes to abortion, literally means that they are in favor of women being allowed the option of aborting a fetus.

"It only means you don't consider yourself Solomon of what choice is best or that your personal choice is better for everyone."

You're talking about something other than abortion, aren't you? Sorry, but "pro-choice" has been firmly attached to the abortion issue for decades and I'm sure it will remain so for years to come.

You'll have to find another way to describe one's ability or right to choose options outside of the abortion issue.

December 11, 2011 at 7:58 p.m.
fairmon said...

alpro responds with...

Not to split hairs with you, but the common definition of someone who identifies themselves as being "pro-choice" when it comes to abortion, literally means that they are in favor of women being allowed the option of aborting a fetus.

"It only means you don't consider yourself Solomon of what choice is best or that your personal choice is better for everyone."

and alpro said....

You're talking about something other than abortion, aren't you? Sorry, but "pro-choice" has been firmly attached to the abortion issue for decades and I'm sure it will remain so for years to come.

I am talking about choice including abortion. Too many people think they know what is best for others and those disagreeing are either not not well informed or not capable of making their own choices. The term pro-choice being linked only to abortion doesn't mean it should or has to be.

I do not advocate the choice of abortion but do not object to women having that choice without interference. The more choices people have without some politician or special interest group deciding for them the better off everyone will be.

December 11, 2011 at 8:43 p.m.
fairmon said...

alpro states...

You're out there on that ledge all by yourself. Nowhere have I read of anyone else, including our politicians, that agree with your position on that, at least openly.

You have about as much right and an invitation to determine what happens to women's reproductive organs, as religious Conservatives do. And that would be none.

No one has that right unless they are helping pay for it. If I am paying, even if less than twenty five cents per year, I do have a right to have some say about the terms and conditions. You may be surprised at the number of people in agreement. Those seeking an abortion have every right to pay for it without conditions from any source.

December 11, 2011 at 8:51 p.m.
fairmon said...

Alpro...

I guess we should be thankful we still have the freedom to disagree, debate and retain our beliefs without fear of retribution. We can advocate with elected officials, believe or not believe them and express dissatisfaction with their ideology and their leadership. I do think we may find near 100% being pro-choice around retaining those rights.

December 11, 2011 at 9:03 p.m.
fairmon said...

dude_abides said...

harp... are you suggesting the government enter an agreement with a teenage girl to cash in her reproductive rights in exchange for an abortion?

Yes, If the abortion if tax payer funded.

December 11, 2011 at 11:05 p.m.
moonpie said...

While I understand the discomfort allowing 11 year old girls the option to purchase Plan B because they may not understand how to properly use it... Plan B is a safe and effective form of birth control. It's not fool proof, but then nothing is.

Should we require 16 year olds to have parental consent to purchase condoms?

Sadly, sex frequently comes before maturity and responsibility. Many kids have unprotected sex because they are too embarrassed to discuss sex with their doctor or parents, to embarrassed to buy condoms. So this law seeks to limit access to protections against unintended pregnancy.

Taken to the extreme, if we maximize the probability of unintended pregnancy, then we maximize the number of people who would be seeking abortion. Abortion is less safe than Plan B.

Clay's point is that this ruling is actually pro abortion, not pro choice.

Which is worse, preventing pregnancy or preventing abortion? Plan B can do both.

December 12, 2011 at 12:11 a.m.
alprova said...

hARP3339 wrote: "I do not advocate the choice of abortion but do not object to women having that choice without interference. The more choices people have without some politician or special interest group deciding for them the better off everyone will be."

Well as far as I know, you're neither a politician nor a special interest group and yet you advocate the sterilization of poor women who get pregnant, which is quite a great deal of interference, if you ask me.

"No one has that right unless they are helping pay for it. If I am paying, even if less than twenty five cents per year, I do have a right to have some say about the terms and conditions."

No you do not have a right to have some say about the terms and conditions. That's the part you don't get and apparently you never will get. It's their body and you have no say-so in what they do with it.

"You may be surprised at the number of people in agreement. Those seeking an abortion have every right to pay for it without conditions from any source."

The Hyde Amendment recently turned 35 years old, which prevents Federal funds from being used to pay for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest, or when medically necessary to save the life of the mother.

So, you're arguing a point that is not in contention to start with, and it hasn't been for years.

This means that not one thin dime of what you pay in taxes has been used to fund an abortion.

December 12, 2011 at 12:15 a.m.
alprova said...

Harp, I did a little more digging on the issue of taxpayer funded abortions, just to be clear on them.

17 States provide STATE taxpayer funded abortions to those unable to pay for them out of their own pockets. Those states are: AK, AZ, CA, CT, DE, HI, IL, MD, MN, MT, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OR, WA, and WV.

Unless you have ever lived in any of those states, you have never paid a penny towards the funding of an abortion for a welfare recipient.

December 12, 2011 at 12:31 a.m.
fairmon said...

alpro said...

Definition of the word "Promote": Further the progress of (something, esp. a cause, venture, or aim); support or actively encourage

I have not and do not object to feeding children that cannot afford or do not have access to good meals. However, actively encourage does not mean pay for nor does support means to provide funding. I didn't find your definition of support in the dictionary.

December 12, 2011 at 1:46 a.m.
fairmon said...

alpro said....

Unless you have ever lived in any of those states, you have never paid a penny towards the funding of an abortion for a welfare recipient

Therefore? My opinion remains the same.

December 12, 2011 at 1:50 a.m.
alprova said...

Harp3339 wrote: "Therefore? My opinion remains the same."

Therefore, you don't have a leg to stand on and your opinion is meaningless, according to the criteria you laid out earlier as to why you feel that you have a right to have a say-so in what should be done to welfare recipients who have abortions.

Opinions are like arseholes. Everyone has one.

Thank the Lord that your particular opinion on this issue is not shared by enough people to make a difference nor will it ever come to pass as policy in this nation.

December 12, 2011 at 1:59 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

lkeithlu said... "So, BPR, am I correct in thinking you equate Plan B with murder?"

Personally? I do think the abortion of a viable 3rd trimester fetus is murder. It is also pretty hard for me to distinguish between murder and a 2nd trimester abortion. When you go down that path, and try to select a point in a pregnancy that you are "OK" with you start to realize that you are not equipped to make that call. I think of my kids and ask myself, "what if we had made the decision to end any of those pregnancies"? Would I not have been guilty of murdering that child sleeping down the hall from me now?

I am comfortable with prevention of conception. But after that point the biological definition of the child is complete and to terminate that embryo is the termination of a life.

Just because you have not met the person that you have killed does not mean they have not been murdered, right?

December 12, 2011 at 7:38 a.m.
moon4kat said...

Rickaroo: brilliant and informative post. Thank you.

December 12, 2011 at 8:03 a.m.
rolando said...

And that is exactly what the Government does, when it pertains to providing healthy meals to children, when it provides funds to schools, when it provides education about eating healthy, etc

Alprova -- No, that is dictating to and commanding the states to obey at the threat of losing essentially all federal funds.

Those things and many others are well outside the meaning of the "promote the general walfare" clause.

It has given us mandatory compliance with things like ObamaCare health insurance, whether we want it or not. The ever-present threat of the IRS Gestapo is used in that case. [All governmental edicts involve a dire penalty of some kind for non-compliance.]

There is no end to the government's power and control over us when that becomes the order of the day.

December 12, 2011 at 8:11 a.m.
alprova said...

Rolando wrote: "Alprova -- No, that is dictating to and commanding the states to obey at the threat of losing essentially all federal funds."

How is the providing of money to the states to fund social programs & education a threat?

"Those things and many others are well outside the meaning of the "promote the general walfare" clause."

Well, we disagree on that. I happen to think that they are offered in the spirit of the very definition of the phrase.

"It has given us mandatory compliance with things like ObamaCare health insurance, whether we want it or not. The ever-present threat of the IRS Gestapo is used in that case. [All governmental edicts involve a dire penalty of some kind for non-compliance.]"

Obamacare comes with many financial incentives that will pay employers that provide insurance to employees. If individuals decline to purchase health coverage for themselves, the IRS will merely collect an amount equal to the premium that they would pay an insurer and pay their medical bills.

Since medical care will be provided by medical providers to those without insurance, what that means is that the Government is providing them coverage at a cost. It essentially means that everyone contributes something towards their health care.

Now maybe you're a-okay with people making a conscience decision to become deadbeats in the off-chance that they wind up in the hospital.

A lack of insurance for approximately 15% of the people today is a huge burden on the taxpayers as things stand now. Why in the world are so many conservatives against a plan that coerces and encourages self-responsibility for the cost of their health care expenses?

Being self-responsible used to be a common theme that Republicans/Conservatives used to shove down the throats of all Americans. Something is wrong with this picture.

December 12, 2011 at 9:06 a.m.

acerigger said...

Kids can't buy alcohol nor tobacco products and it's all because of government control over their lives. It's time to roll back their interference with "freedom"!

Are you actually saying that there should not be age limits on when people should be able to buy these products? If so I guess you are on board with Newt saying poor kids should have to go to work why the rich kids go to college. What a damn joke!

December 12, 2011 at 9:29 a.m.
ctfpfan08 said...

PLAN B IS NOT THE ABORTION PILL. DO YOUR RESEARCH BEFORE YOU GET UP ON YOUR SOAPBOX. PLAN B IS NOT JUST FOR CARELESS PEOPLE. IF A FEMALE IS RAPED SHE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO THEN ENDURE THE TRAUMA OF AN ABORTION. IF A FEMALE TAKES PRECAUTIONS AND THOSE PRECAUTIONS DON'T WORK, PLAN B CAN HELP HER AVOID ABORTION LATER. IF A FEMALE IS OLD ENOUGH TO MAKE THE DECISION TO ENGAGE IN THE ACTIVITY BY CHOICE, HOWEVER "WRONG" OR SINFUL YOU MAY THINK IT IS, SHE IS OLD ENOUGH TO GET PLAN B. ALSO, MEN SHOULD NOT EVEN BEGIN TO THINK THEY HAVE ANY RIGHT TO WEIGH IN ON THIS TOPIC. SORRY, BUT IT'S TRUE. YOU CAN NOT UNDERSTAND.

December 12, 2011 at 9:49 a.m.
ibshame said...

cttpfan08 wrote: "ALSO, MEN SHOULD NOT EVEN BEGIN TO THINK THEY HAVE ANY RIGHT TO WEIGH IN ON THIS TOPIC. SORRY, BUT IT'S TRUE. YOU CAN NOT UNDERSTAND."

I agree with most of what you said prior to the above statement and here's why: When a woman decides she is going to have a baby and not put the child up for adoption, whether the man chooses to or not it then becomes part of his responsibility to provide financially, emotionally and educationally for the child at least until the child turns 18. Supposedly if he does not provide at least financially for the child there are legal measures which can be taken to make him whether he was asked if he wanted the woman to have the child or not. The only choice the man has is to either accept his responsibility or walk away from it. If he walks away he can face loss of credibility at best and jail time at worse. Men have as much right to weigh in on child-bearing subjects as women. Women don't have to agree with their opinions but men do have the right to express them.

December 12, 2011 at 11:03 a.m.
jsgood35 said...

Let's say a newly pregnant woman gets mugged or the like and the child is miscarried due to trauma and the woman lives, would you call that murder of an unborn child or just the accidental abortion of a sack of cells?

Murder of an unborn child of course. There is no gray area.

December 12, 2011 at 12:38 p.m.
GatorFan said...

If someone wants to take a pill to not get pregnant, then let them. That's their right. Conservatives can argue against it all day long, but when their teenage daughter gets raped and might become pregnant then I bet they would be running to the pharmacy. Same goes for the liberals against the death penalty. If one of their daughter was raped and murdered they would be screaming for the SOB to be strapped to the chair. You can argue for or against it all day long but but once your put in that situation your opinion will probably change.

December 12, 2011 at 1:17 p.m.
acerigger said...

lovetheusaorleave,my comment was made"tongue in cheek",please re-calibrate your snark meter.

December 12, 2011 at 1:31 p.m.

Hey Ace my "SNARK" meter is just fine. With some of the foolish post you have had on here one never knows.

December 12, 2011 at 2:09 p.m.
acerigger said...

MEH.

December 12, 2011 at 2:45 p.m.

Plan A: Kill the baby.

Plan B: Kill the baby.

Plan C: Kill the baby.

I don't even want to know what plan 'd' would be. Aren't these the same plans the nazis had for jewish babies?

December 12, 2011 at 3:01 p.m.
whatsnottaken said...

This goes against most of my conservtive thinking, but what are the options? Take the pill, no baby. Don't take the pill, have a baby, raise for a time in abject poverty, beat it to death when it's a few months old and go to jail for a couple of years. Poor baby any way you look at it. If your God really created us in his image ... wow.

December 12, 2011 at 3:18 p.m.

LOL @ ACE, glad to see that once again you use your old stand by MEH. What is it, about 10-15 times now?

December 12, 2011 at 3:32 p.m.
acerigger said...

1st time,go chek lol

December 12, 2011 at 3:43 p.m.

Whatsnottaken, You think only poor women buy and take the pill? Naive much? Who's to say having the baby wouldn't wake the "poor" mother up and get her to actually make something of herself? Happens all the time. Besides, women in poor countries have babies all the time and somehow raise them into adulthood without welfare checks or section 8 housing.

Most of the "poor" people in this country have as much as "rich" people in other countries. It's all in the perspective.

In other words, I refuse the accept the false premise upon which you based your reponse.

December 12, 2011 at 3:45 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Thanks for the kind remark, moon4kat.

FPSE, your fanatacism knows no bounds. You are a perfect illustration of someone who is so busy spewing out your ideological verbiage that the noise from your own ranting drowns out the reality of what's really going on all around you. Plan B should be a "win/win" for everybody, regardless of our politics. It will prevent pregnancies, which will in turn PREVENT abortions, which will in turn make abortion a moot point. For cryin' out loud, if you want to keep thinking that safe, effective, accessible birth control is itself "baby killing," well, you have the right to be as batty as you wish and to express your batty opinion whenever you wish. But you are too caught up in seething anger and mindless ranting to be able to see the forest for the trees.

December 12, 2011 at 3:56 p.m.
whatsnottaken said...

Bottom line - Our gene pool has regressed through devolution to the point the only animal on the planet unworthy of having offspring is humans. Let us have the pill. In fact, force feed it to to all of mankind daily so that this generation that is obviously unable to raise and nurture its on won't have a chance to procreate. It will save us from ourselves.

December 12, 2011 at 4:14 p.m.

Wow 1st time? That's right the other was DFTT. I am sure glad you are coming along nicely learning your alphabet.

December 12, 2011 at 4:25 p.m.

Rickaroo,

You should seek professional help for your projection issues. Seething hatred? Mindless ranting? Batty? You should read what you posted.

You mad bro????

December 12, 2011 at 5:13 p.m.
fairmon said...

alpro ask....How is the providing of money to the states to fund social programs & education a threat?

1-It is borrowed money with a high price tag with many unnecessary programs with little help to the truly needy. 2-It usurps state sovereignty and peoples freedom of choice.

I accept there needs to be health care insurance reform and how it is paid for. Repeal the requirement that hospitals must treat those without insurance and enable those that can't afford insurance to obtain it. No doubt anyone not mentally ill or just totally stupid would have insurance. Apparently you have not read the AHCA if you think it will save anyone money or continue current coverage. I believe you will remember and regret defending this piece of sh$%& regulation.

December 12, 2011 at 7:11 p.m.
acerigger said...

Thanx, sTROLL on by anytime

December 12, 2011 at 8:02 p.m.

Wow how clever, did you think out that on your own? I really doubt it. Looking back it seems that most of your post are things you have copied and pasted from somewhere else. But keep practicing and maybe someday you will have an original thought.

December 12, 2011 at 11:25 p.m.
anniebelle said...

I see since my last visit to this board some new knuckledraggers have arrived to sling their Faux talking points. I thought they were just brainwashed, but alas, they are brain poisioned. - A. Belle

''Conservatives are not 'thinkers'; they are rationalizers who give an intellectual gloss to their belief that an alliance of predatory businesspeople and religious extremists should rule the rest of us. The wreckage caused by modern conservatism lies all around us, and speaks for itself. If conservatism isn't dead, it should be.'' -D. Rosen

December 13, 2011 at 6:54 a.m.
alprova said...

I previously wrote: "How is the providing of money to the states to fund social programs & education a threat?"

Harp responded with: "1-It is borrowed money with a high price tag with many unnecessary programs with little help to the truly needy."

I think the truly needy would tend to disagree with you on that.

"2-It usurps state sovereignty and peoples freedom of choice."

What people's freedom of choice? Your State leaders choose to avail themselves of the Federal funds offered to them by the Government.

How does their choice affect you? You are paying not one penny more in taxes since 2002, and in fact due to income tax breaks offered to most Americans, should be paying less now than when Bush came into office.

What freedom to choose anything at all have you lost?

I read people claiming this all the time, but never read a credible charge to illustrate it.

Let's see if you can offer any of the freedoms that you once had, that you no longer have.

December 13, 2011 at 7:25 a.m.
moonpie said...

I agree with Harp that the Obama health care plan is not a very good plan. I see it as a boon for insurance companies. Requiring people to have insurance without having a public option is unwise. The insurers are smart to complain (politically). It gives the impression that they're making real concessions when they really aren't. They will have a lot more people enrolled which should more than offset the losses from people they can no longer abdandon when they fall ill.

In my mind, the Democrats capitulated and gave the insurance industry a golden egg. The problem on the Republican side is that so many of them still think this is socialism. It's not. It's welfare to the private sector.

But I'm a little confused by one thing in his post: What does "sh$%&" mean? There are too many symbols, or too few. Sheet, would fit.

December 13, 2011 at 9:54 a.m.
acerigger said...

lovetheusaorleave, here's an original thought for you,you're not smart enough to recognize a satirical post,you're so thin-skinned that you can't take a (intended to be friendly) jibe so you gotta start with insulting remarks. This is your last "snack" from me 'cause I will follow my own advice as regards your posts,DFTT.

December 13, 2011 at 10:20 a.m.
fairmon said...

alpro. Start with the AHCA and work your way back through legislation back to FDR and social security with no choice for those working. Taxes have not gone up but spending and waste have resulting in borrowing over forty cants of each dollar spent. Local and state governments keep prostituting to a manipulative federal government. The 1.2 trillion reduction over 10 years would increase the debt to 28 trillion instead of 30 trillion without considering inflation. Does anyone see the problem with that level of debt?

December 15, 2011 at 6:06 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.