Marriage: America’s Greatest Weapon Against Child Poverty

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Who did you talk to? This isn't a PP slam but very few front line volunteers that are out (which I take to mean on the street interacting with the public) can tell you with any decent degree of accuracy what the organization really does and breakdown its spending...

...wanna talk mission statement kinda stuff??? better....

When I was in college, I used PP as my primary health care provider period. I would go in for a cold or whatever even. The doctors on staff are just as capable of taking care of strep throat as “female” problems. They really are a wonderful organization that give so much to their local female community.

Honestly, do we really want unwanted pregnancies? We don’t. Preventing pregnancy, PAP smears and STD treatment are all civically and fiscally responsible things for an advanced civilization to do.

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Now you're talking about the support of using public money to support "your" moral views. Your moral view is no better...or worse...than theirs. If you support that public money use with economic justification...with the understanding that others may support other economically justifed public money uses that are more valuable...and some may dispute your conclusion...well, than I might jump in with you.

But jumping on the moral question? Well, your view of abstinence is that it is a ridiculous concept. My guess is?...they do not. Now what?

No, I don’t really think they are my moral views. I think it is a reality that an aspirin between a girls knees isn’t really a viable method of birth control. Again, we are back to someone saying it would make me feel better if you’d behave as I want you to. It just doesn’t work like that. We’re talking base level human instinct. Don’t go fucking because I don’t want you to doesn’t work. Since Texas has dictated Abstinence Only sex education the teen pregnancy is sky rocketing.

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

When I was in college, I used PP as my primary health care provider period. I would go in for a cold or whatever even. The doctors on staff are just as capable of taking care of strep throat as “female” problems. They really are a wonderful organization that give so much to their local female community.

Honestly, do we really want unwanted pregnancies? We don’t. Preventing pregnancy, PAP smears and STD treatment are all civically and fiscally responsible things for an advanced civilization to do.



No, I don’t really think they are my moral views. I think it is a reality that an aspirin between a girls knees isn’t really a viable method of birth control. Again, we are back to someone saying it would make me feel better if you’d behave as I want you to. It just doesn’t work like that. We’re talking base level human instinct. Don’t go fucking because I don’t want you to doesn’t work. Since Texas has dictated Abstinence Only sex education the teen pregnancy is sky rocketing.

My comment was general about frontline volunteers...not PP...and I explicitly pointed out as much...reading comprehension is a wonderful skill...

"Do we really want unwanted pregnancies?" I'll call 'em humans....so do many..."We Don't"....who is we? Are you assuming we all share your view? I'll leave it at that...I got into hot water a month or so ago for discussing this topic and not kowtowing to the P.C. on an escort board views....but if the you wanna discuss this make sure your friendly mods are open to the discussion...until then I'll leave it at this...

[Camille]

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Who did you talk to? This isn't a PP slam but very few front line volunteers that are out (which I take to mean on the street interacting with the public) can tell you with any decent degree of accuracy what the organization really does and breakdown its spending...

...wanna talk mission statement kinda stuff??? better....

Atl...I wasn't born yesterday. It takes a lot to sell me n just numbers so I asked if they had any stats. They had some great info packs that had been carefully put together showing where both the bulk of their funding comes from and what the bulk of that funding is spent on.....and a host of other detailed stuff. Given at Chi was on the brink yesterday with PP issues it makes total sense that they would be that well prepped when canvassing.

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by Camille

Atl...I wasn't born yesterday. It takes a lot to sell me n just numbers so I asked if they had any stats. They had some great info packs that had been carefully put together showing where both the bulk of their funding comes from and what the bulk of that funding is spent on.....and a host of other detailed stuff. Given at Chi was on the brink yesterday with PP issues it makes total sense that they would be that well prepped when canvassing.

Actually if they are under pressure in a piviotal time, or to use your phrase "on the brink," that you (as a random passerby) would talk to a well briefed, on message volunteer is less likely not more likely. I speak from experience in a handful of campaigns, where the closer to "on the brink" time we get the less control we had over the quality and consistency of message with volunteers. Of course I'm speculating. You're speculating. We'll never know for certain, unless you got the individual's contact info and follow up with them.

[Camille]

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Actually if they are under pressure in a piviotal time, or to use your phrase "on the brink," that you (as a random passerby) would talk to a well briefed, on message volunteer is less likely not more likely. I speak from experience in a handful of campaigns, where the closer to "on the brink" time we get the less control we had over the quality and consistency of message with volunteers. Of course I'm speculating. You're speculating. We'll never know for certain, unless you got the individual's contact info and follow up with them.

And once again you are jumping to conclusions. The person talked to was just ending their shift and passing over to another group. She gave me her own personal time and I took her for coffee so we could talk. I honestly couldn't care less about your campaigns because this wasn't about you believe it or not and I find it amusing that you of all people would compare any campaign YOU were involved with to something

You and I are done talking about this. Trust me.

[Camille]

Meant to say compare any campaign you were involved with to something PP would campaign for. In Chi you cannot donate to local PP campaigns unless you live in the area...so t here was nothing in it for her either.

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by Camille

And once again you are jumping to conclusions. The person talked to was just ending their shift and passing over to another group. She gave me her own personal time and I took her for coffee so we could talk. I honestly couldn't care less about your campaigns because this wasn't about you believe it or not and I find it amusing that you of all people would compare any campaign YOU were involved with to something

You and I are done talking about this. Trust me.

Camille, we all jump to conclusions on this board. If we didn't, there would be very few posts. Someone posts 2-3 paragraphs and can't possibly add all the necessary background or context. As a result folks respond the best they can with the information they have.

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

My comment was general about frontline volunteers...not PP...and I explicitly pointed out as much...reading comprehension is a wonderful skill...

"Do we really want unwanted pregnancies?" I'll call 'em humans....so do many..."We Don't"....who is we? Are you assuming we all share your view? I'll leave it at that...I got into hot water a month or so ago for discussing this topic and not kowtowing to the P.C. on an escort board views....but if the you wanna discuss this make sure your friendly mods are open to the discussion...until then I'll leave it at this...

No you said something snarky about my comprehension skills then said you don't want to discuss it. I was giving my anecdotal evidence just as you gave yours. Period.

No, why should I call a woman’s possible future pregnancy a human. When and if she and her partner decide to have a child, then in my view we have a human on the way. Not getting pregnant isn’t akin to having an abortion. I never once brought up abortion. I feel that it shouldn’t be used as a birth control method. I feel that birth control should be used. Again. Period.

“We don’t want them” - Who do you know that wants children that they aren’t financially or emotionally ready to have them? Give people reasonable access to birth control and let them decide when they are going to have their children.

Again – RK brought up abortion. I never once, not once, said word one about it. I said – Give people easily accessible and reasonably priced birth control. And one more time. Period. Debate the merits of abortion all you want with whomever you want. I have no intention of doing such. The thread is about poverty, children and access to resources.

[atlcomedy]

I will respond to this as soon as the mods say I can.

I will say things that will be hurtful to some because they are living in grief or denial. I will be civil.

But I'll wait for the mods...so PM them to green light me.

[Guest050715-1]

Alt, I am discussing how to ameliorate children in poverty not abortions. I'm discussing birth control and reasonable access to it. I cannot debate abortion. Everyone has their own view on that. Mine, I assume differs from yours, but you, as we all, are entitled to your thoughts on the matter.

I have no issue with you articulating your view. But I am not going to debate abortion either on the merits or the emotion.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

[/font][/size]


Now you're talking about the support of using public money to support "your" moral views. Your moral view is no better...or worse...than theirs. If you support that public money use with economic justification...with the understanding that others may support other economically justifed public money uses that are more valuable...and some may dispute your conclusion...well, than I might jump in with you.

But jumping on the moral question? Well, your view of abstinence is that it is a ridiculous concept. My guess is?...they do not. Now what?

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Its the same crap as the government unions -- recycling our money to get more of it. Like public TV, I think PP does a lot of good. Just take them (and many others) the hell off the public dole. Its a charity -- it should be supported that way.

Speaking of public money. How do you and PJ stand on this*** backward government way of using public money to support a 'chairty's' school. Would you folks feel better if PP was a church and the government gave them money? Because the government does give money to services that church's run.

***
http://www.startribune.com/nation/119224214.html

Supreme Court throws out challenge to church school tax credit

Updated: April 4, 2011
The Supreme Court's conservative majority opened the door for new state support for religious schools, ruling that special tax credits that pay for children to go to church schools cannot be challenged by dissenting taxpayers.
The 5-4 decision is a major victory for those who support the "school choice" movement and aid to parochial schools, and a potentially far-reaching loss for defenders of the separation of church and state

[WTF]

http://teacher.scholastic.com/schola...?article=d1031

YES
When President Bush came to office, federal rules excluded faith-based groups from competing for federal grants to provide services for addicts, the homeless, and others in need.
That's unfair, because in some neighborhoods with high concentrations of needy people, the only social services available are operated by churches or other faith-based organizations. That's why the President wants equal treatment for all groups. He doesn't care if an organization believes in God or not; he wants to know if its program works.

Here is a link to many articles pro and con on the subject but to think that the government is not funding charities is naive. For Republicans to make that arguement is hypocritical.

http://library.generousgiving.org/pa...ec=28&page=265



Here is the hyporicy of the other side when Bush was wanting to fund charities.

http://atheism.about.com/od/faithbas..._and_Posts.htm