Jetrell Fo

DuracellEnergizer said:

ROBBIE ROBERTSON – ROBBIE ROBERTSON

ALBUM: 10/10

ALBUM COVER: 10/10

This album is fantastic from front to back.

Possessed said:

Maybe he thinks it’s something bad with this site and this can’t use the other thread.

Not everything I say has something to do with this site. I was going to say … false alarm, it’s just gas. Then you went and ruined my fun by starting a heckle.

Bad Possessed … 😉

TV’s Frink said:

Possessed said:

Maybe he thinks it’s something bad with this site and this can’t use the other thread.

[Ding ding ding]

Give it a rest please.

Thank you.

[Ding ding ding]

TV’s Frink said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/opinion/the-shocking-affront-of-donald-trumps-cia-stunt.html

I never served, but I would hope anyone who has would agree that Trump’s speech at the CIA was despicable.

JEDIT:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/in-seconds-at-the-cia-trump-made-america-less-safe/514193/

As a Veteran, he did not offend me, but I don’t think they should have let him go in without notes on etiquette when it comes to addressing these folks. I believe he meant well but as a civilian and President he didn’t do himself any favors with all the quips. A couple would have been fine but add tooting his own horn and it was more than any one of those folks probably wanted to hear.

Due to him being somewhat new to this type of environment I’m willing to give some leeway but I sure hope he and/or his staff make some stern recommendations against this style in the future.

“Sir, I must protest, I am not a merry man.” (Worf, “Qpid”)

Guinan: “You, you always drink alone. It wouldn’t hurt you to seek out a little…companionship.”

Worf: “I would require a Klingon woman for…‘companionship’. Earth females are too fragile.”

Guinan: “Not all of them. There are a few on this ship that would find you… tame.”

Worf: [Laughs] “Impossible.”

Guinan: “You never know until you try.”

Worf: “Then I will never know.”

Guinan: “Coward.”

Worf: “I was merely concerned for the…safety of my crewmates.”

Guinan: “Drink your prune juice.” (“Yesterday’s Enterprise”)

God Save Pop Punk said:

Just got a message on Tumblr from someone saying they’d seen these covers; didn’t realize they’d gotten done. They look fantastic, and I love the variety. I think my favorite’s the German poster, but I really like the VHS cover aesthetic as well. Guess I’d better go download these and upload the reconstruction!

Was it Ray that messaged you, LOL.

I do love the German Poster cover as well. It’s my favorite of the bunch but they’re all awesome.

😃

I can’t escape this gut feeling I have that something very odd is transpiring. I don’t like it one bit.

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

doubleofive said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

http://www.vox.com/identities/2017/1/23/14356582/trump-global-gag-rule-abortion

The global gag rule goes much further than simply banning US foreign aid from paying for abortions directly — which is already the law, and which has its own detrimental consequences for women.

Instead, the gag rule tries to control how international organizations use their own funds, raised from other sources. Just like Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood in the United States, it’s an attempt to stop abortion from happening by forcing organizations that provide it to make a choice: stop providing or promoting abortion, or lose the large amounts of funding that you get from the US government to support your other medical services.

The reality is simple and brutal. Reinstating the global gag rule will not reduce abortions. Sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, had higher abortion rates after George W. Bush reinstated the gag rule, because it reduced women’s access to contraception and caused more unwanted pregnancies, which women then chose to terminate.

The gag rule will, however, lead to more women dying across the developing world. Marie Stopes International, a major global family planning organization, estimates that without alternative funding, the loss of its services alone will cause 6.5 million unintended pregnancies, 2.2 million abortions, 2.1 million unsafe abortions, and 21,700 maternal deaths just in Trump’s first term, from 2017 to 2020. The organization says it will also be prevented from reaching 1.5 million women with contraception every year.

Studies conducted by PAI have shown that every time the global gag rule returns, more women in developing countries bear unwanted pregnancies, die or become disabled due to unsafe abortions, or lose crucial medical care.

So much for respecting life.

Directed at personal use of one’s body ONLY, taking precautions or abstinence is every persons right and responsibility if they could not afford the possible outcome. In cases of medical necessity (life/death of fetus/mother) or sexual assault/attack, I would think they’d be wise enough to allow it. I’m not them nor am I privy to the actual details of all this gag rule encompasses so this is just my opinion based on information I know of.

If any organization mentions the word “abortion”, they can no longer have any American government funding, even for contraception. There is no wisdom to any of this. You can’t expect the entire third world to stop having sex because they can’t get condoms anymore.

You mean they cannot abstain? They must have sex constantly to survive like breathing air? They shouldn’t need American funding to take care of their own country should they? Those countries cannot raise the money themselves and/or find better ways to educate their populations on their own?

Some are refugees, some are uneducated, some will have been made pregnant against their will (though cannot for fear of safety disclose that). Some will be in countries where there is hardly any government in place - or the little Govt there is, is corrupt, inept - or not trusted.

Thankfully a few charities do great work in places like this - and as stated in the vox thread above - it seems that many of these places will lose access to birth control, education and the services as a whole (along with the results and effects last time the ‘gag rule’ was in place).

For people on the ground there it’ll be a confusing time - possibilities will have changed, leading to confusion and trust issues - and education now has limited options too.

It also seems likely that pooling resources with other countries may well be lost too.

more info can be found here:-

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2709326/
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8527977/trump-abortion-global-gag-rule/

I did say this prior to the post you quote …

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

http://www.vox.com/identities/2017/1/23/14356582/trump-global-gag-rule-abortion

The global gag rule goes much further than simply banning US foreign aid from paying for abortions directly — which is already the law, and which has its own detrimental consequences for women.

Instead, the gag rule tries to control how international organizations use their own funds, raised from other sources. Just like Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood in the United States, it’s an attempt to stop abortion from happening by forcing organizations that provide it to make a choice: stop providing or promoting abortion, or lose the large amounts of funding that you get from the US government to support your other medical services.

The reality is simple and brutal. Reinstating the global gag rule will not reduce abortions. Sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, had higher abortion rates after George W. Bush reinstated the gag rule, because it reduced women’s access to contraception and caused more unwanted pregnancies, which women then chose to terminate.

The gag rule will, however, lead to more women dying across the developing world. Marie Stopes International, a major global family planning organization, estimates that without alternative funding, the loss of its services alone will cause 6.5 million unintended pregnancies, 2.2 million abortions, 2.1 million unsafe abortions, and 21,700 maternal deaths just in Trump’s first term, from 2017 to 2020. The organization says it will also be prevented from reaching 1.5 million women with contraception every year.

Studies conducted by PAI have shown that every time the global gag rule returns, more women in developing countries bear unwanted pregnancies, die or become disabled due to unsafe abortions, or lose crucial medical care.

So much for respecting life.

Directed at personal use of one’s body ONLY, taking precautions or abstinence is every persons right and responsibility if they could not afford the possible outcome. In cases of medical necessity (life/death of fetus/mother) or sexual assault/attack, I would think they’d be wise enough to allow it. I’m not them nor am I privy to the actual details of all this gag rule encompasses so this is just my opinion based on information I know of.

I most certainly understand the roadblocks involved. I also consider that, in this day and age, people are far more aware due to all the education that was created when such dilemmas arose overseas. Does that knowledge just disappear? Do all those who’ve learned just forget? These are questions I cannot answer but I am glad there are other avenues.

I read it - but it didn’t include the possibilites/scenarios - or effects of - that I asked.

Education is key to this (and many things in life) - a young mother may not have the education, or access to education, as someone who had better education just a few years ago. As stated, education has just changed due to re-introduction of the gag-rule.

Word of mouth is key in environments that these charities are struggling with - and highlighting. Education is always in flux - and without doubt ‘all the education that was created when such dilemmas arose’ will indeed disappear over time - or as stated above not be in-effect for say refugees, remote places, or places where there is little trust in the Govt - or corruption - or in places where the mother may not be able to admit she has been raped for fear of reprisal or social stigma etc.

If removal of the gag-rule can save more lives - and educate people to all of the possibilities - then surely that is the better outcome for those that are likely to be affected the most, no?

If it can be done in such a way so as not to negate or remove the care of the citizens whose money is used to provide it, then yes, I would agree completely. I should state that I do not believe that it should be America’s responsibility alone to provide such things. There is an entire planet of people and nations that should bare some of the weight with regards to helping out neighboring societies that might need that little extra.

Other countries provide aid too (as mentioned in the articles linked above) and many provide aid without condition of ‘gag rules’ like has just been re-introduced.

The removal of the gag rule (or full range of options or education) - is not going to cost the US more money.

I asked you about your country because you asked me about mine. You did not answer my question so I’m going to assume the answer is no unless you just forgot what I asked.

Deflection indeed.

Don’t assume - where’s the facts in that? Though why assume ‘no’?, why not ‘yes’ or a similar amount? Why not look it up?

These are rhetorical questions - you don’t have to answer them.

.

In case you are genuinely interested in the answer to your question ‘Does your country offer equal amount of assistance as America (in equal ratio to your population), in tax payer dollars, to these causes while taking proper care of it’s people at home?’

Upon entering the term ‘percentage per population for overseas aid’ into the search bar this appears top…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors

This is the next…

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/sep/09/foreign-aid-which-countries-are-the-most-generous

I’m in the UK.

It’s not exactly what you’re looking for - but am sure you’ll be able to extrapolate the data required.

.

For me, it’s not a competition on who does and doesn’t provide aid - or percentage - just that as long we can and do provide it if we can. And with no limits on education attached if possible.

(though well done the Swedes 😃)

And if I remember correctly, I agreed with your final sentiment in an earlier post, so there is no need for posturing. Both our countries have given greatly. I don’t know the Health Care System status of the U.K. at present but I can tell you that here in America despite what some say our Health Care System is not what it could or needs to be based on the fact that even our own Military Veterans have been dying due to poorly funded and managed systems. I’m not saying we shouldn’t help at all, I’m saying as you did, that as long as we can provide it without limitations to it’s dispersal that we do so while still being able to properly care for our own.

It’s not posturing - you asked for an answer and got one. The rest of your statement - in relation to a conversation about the gag rule - is a deflection and irrelevant to it.

The removal of the gag rule will not cost the US more money.

Now, if you’d like to talk about the wider effects of allocation funds from the Govts to it’s people at home and abroad that is a different conversation. As is the current state of the NHS.

They were my views, not deflection, and I don’t know what the cost WILL be at the moment because I don’t have any information on what is now being asked for and what the actual costs are. If you know then share them please. I want to have an informed discussion, not a pissing match, over it.

There is no monetary cost to the US in having charities, health groups and medical professionals being allowed to talk about abortion in countries where their is help is needed, and education an important factor therein.

If you think there is - there is a little chance of ‘informed discussion’.

I’ll leave it there.

I said absolutely nothing about associating a cost with verbal discussion of abortion, none. I am talking about actual medical/surgical services/supplies only and their dispersion.

Another deflection - or to blunt - a lie. Your own words say different in response to 005’s post earlier…

doubleofive said:

If any organization mentions the word “abortion”, they can no longer have any American government funding, even for contraception. There is no wisdom to any of this. You can’t expect the entire third world to stop having sex because they can’t get condoms anymore.

**Jetrell Fo ** said

You mean they cannot abstain? They must have sex constantly to survive like breathing air? They shouldn’t need American funding to take care of their own country should they? Those countries cannot raise the money themselves and/or find better ways to educate their populations on their own?

As I said there is little chance of informed discussion with you - it’d be more lies, deflections and revisionism from yourself - as well as an apparent ignorance of the facts linked to articles by other posters during this discussion.

And I’ve not the interest to carry on with that type of fact-free ‘discussion’ on your part.

.

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

oojason said:

Have you an answer? - or do you have another deflection?

Yes.

This is Jay’s answer, not mine, and I’m not sure why he might presume to speak for someone else.

I raised a chuckle - and he wasn’t wrong.

.

Apologies for derailing the thread if it has moved on to other subjects.

If you have to backpedal through posts to find something to nag me about than I cannot help you. Bait someone else, I am no longer biting.

Jay said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Jay said:

oojason said:

Have you an answer? - or do you have another deflection?

Yes.

This is Jay’s answer, not mine, and I’m not sure why he might presume to speak for someone else.

It was a joke. Holy shit.

Maybe putting a 😉 in such a post next time will at least help me get your joking, I had no idea you were. I’m still done with conversation and this thread for now. It is in my best interest.

Apparently this is me today so I’ll take it with a grain of salt and a good laugh.

😃

I am choosing the better part of valor and walking away from this conversation, and this thread for now, it is clearly in my best interest to do so.

😃

Absolutely amazing work VC … just wow.

😃

Warbler said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Some great posts from oojason and Tyr today.

No “bait” posts please. It has been a good conversation, why ruin it?

Thank you.

It is only your opinion that this is a “bait” post.

Alternate opinion.

Why oh why do some feel the need to test the limits of others even after you do what is asked?

Jay said:

oojason said:

Have you an answer? - or do you have another deflection?

Yes.

This is Jay’s answer, not mine, and I’m not sure why he might presume to speak for someone else.

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

doubleofive said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

http://www.vox.com/identities/2017/1/23/14356582/trump-global-gag-rule-abortion

The global gag rule goes much further than simply banning US foreign aid from paying for abortions directly — which is already the law, and which has its own detrimental consequences for women.

Instead, the gag rule tries to control how international organizations use their own funds, raised from other sources. Just like Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood in the United States, it’s an attempt to stop abortion from happening by forcing organizations that provide it to make a choice: stop providing or promoting abortion, or lose the large amounts of funding that you get from the US government to support your other medical services.

The reality is simple and brutal. Reinstating the global gag rule will not reduce abortions. Sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, had higher abortion rates after George W. Bush reinstated the gag rule, because it reduced women’s access to contraception and caused more unwanted pregnancies, which women then chose to terminate.

The gag rule will, however, lead to more women dying across the developing world. Marie Stopes International, a major global family planning organization, estimates that without alternative funding, the loss of its services alone will cause 6.5 million unintended pregnancies, 2.2 million abortions, 2.1 million unsafe abortions, and 21,700 maternal deaths just in Trump’s first term, from 2017 to 2020. The organization says it will also be prevented from reaching 1.5 million women with contraception every year.

Studies conducted by PAI have shown that every time the global gag rule returns, more women in developing countries bear unwanted pregnancies, die or become disabled due to unsafe abortions, or lose crucial medical care.

So much for respecting life.

Directed at personal use of one’s body ONLY, taking precautions or abstinence is every persons right and responsibility if they could not afford the possible outcome. In cases of medical necessity (life/death of fetus/mother) or sexual assault/attack, I would think they’d be wise enough to allow it. I’m not them nor am I privy to the actual details of all this gag rule encompasses so this is just my opinion based on information I know of.

If any organization mentions the word “abortion”, they can no longer have any American government funding, even for contraception. There is no wisdom to any of this. You can’t expect the entire third world to stop having sex because they can’t get condoms anymore.

You mean they cannot abstain? They must have sex constantly to survive like breathing air? They shouldn’t need American funding to take care of their own country should they? Those countries cannot raise the money themselves and/or find better ways to educate their populations on their own?

Some are refugees, some are uneducated, some will have been made pregnant against their will (though cannot for fear of safety disclose that). Some will be in countries where there is hardly any government in place - or the little Govt there is, is corrupt, inept - or not trusted.

Thankfully a few charities do great work in places like this - and as stated in the vox thread above - it seems that many of these places will lose access to birth control, education and the services as a whole (along with the results and effects last time the ‘gag rule’ was in place).

For people on the ground there it’ll be a confusing time - possibilities will have changed, leading to confusion and trust issues - and education now has limited options too.

It also seems likely that pooling resources with other countries may well be lost too.

more info can be found here:-

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2709326/
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8527977/trump-abortion-global-gag-rule/

I did say this prior to the post you quote …

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

http://www.vox.com/identities/2017/1/23/14356582/trump-global-gag-rule-abortion

The global gag rule goes much further than simply banning US foreign aid from paying for abortions directly — which is already the law, and which has its own detrimental consequences for women.

Instead, the gag rule tries to control how international organizations use their own funds, raised from other sources. Just like Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood in the United States, it’s an attempt to stop abortion from happening by forcing organizations that provide it to make a choice: stop providing or promoting abortion, or lose the large amounts of funding that you get from the US government to support your other medical services.

The reality is simple and brutal. Reinstating the global gag rule will not reduce abortions. Sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, had higher abortion rates after George W. Bush reinstated the gag rule, because it reduced women’s access to contraception and caused more unwanted pregnancies, which women then chose to terminate.

The gag rule will, however, lead to more women dying across the developing world. Marie Stopes International, a major global family planning organization, estimates that without alternative funding, the loss of its services alone will cause 6.5 million unintended pregnancies, 2.2 million abortions, 2.1 million unsafe abortions, and 21,700 maternal deaths just in Trump’s first term, from 2017 to 2020. The organization says it will also be prevented from reaching 1.5 million women with contraception every year.

Studies conducted by PAI have shown that every time the global gag rule returns, more women in developing countries bear unwanted pregnancies, die or become disabled due to unsafe abortions, or lose crucial medical care.

So much for respecting life.

Directed at personal use of one’s body ONLY, taking precautions or abstinence is every persons right and responsibility if they could not afford the possible outcome. In cases of medical necessity (life/death of fetus/mother) or sexual assault/attack, I would think they’d be wise enough to allow it. I’m not them nor am I privy to the actual details of all this gag rule encompasses so this is just my opinion based on information I know of.

I most certainly understand the roadblocks involved. I also consider that, in this day and age, people are far more aware due to all the education that was created when such dilemmas arose overseas. Does that knowledge just disappear? Do all those who’ve learned just forget? These are questions I cannot answer but I am glad there are other avenues.

I read it - but it didn’t include the possibilites/scenarios - or effects of - that I asked.

Education is key to this (and many things in life) - a young mother may not have the education, or access to education, as someone who had better education just a few years ago. As stated, education has just changed due to re-introduction of the gag-rule.

Word of mouth is key in environments that these charities are struggling with - and highlighting. Education is always in flux - and without doubt ‘all the education that was created when such dilemmas arose’ will indeed disappear over time - or as stated above not be in-effect for say refugees, remote places, or places where there is little trust in the Govt - or corruption - or in places where the mother may not be able to admit she has been raped for fear of reprisal or social stigma etc.

If removal of the gag-rule can save more lives - and educate people to all of the possibilities - then surely that is the better outcome for those that are likely to be affected the most, no?

If it can be done in such a way so as not to negate or remove the care of the citizens whose money is used to provide it, then yes, I would agree completely. I should state that I do not believe that it should be America’s responsibility alone to provide such things. There is an entire planet of people and nations that should bare some of the weight with regards to helping out neighboring societies that might need that little extra.

Other countries provide aid too (as mentioned in the articles linked above) and many provide aid without condition of ‘gag rules’ like has just been re-introduced.

The removal of the gag rule (or full range of options or education) - is not going to cost the US more money.

I asked you about your country because you asked me about mine. You did not answer my question so I’m going to assume the answer is no unless you just forgot what I asked.

Deflection indeed.

Don’t assume - where’s the facts in that? Though why assume ‘no’?, why not ‘yes’ or a similar amount? Why not look it up?

These are rhetorical questions - you don’t have to answer them.

.

In case you are genuinely interested in the answer to your question ‘Does your country offer equal amount of assistance as America (in equal ratio to your population), in tax payer dollars, to these causes while taking proper care of it’s people at home?’

Upon entering the term ‘percentage per population for overseas aid’ into the search bar this appears top…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors

This is the next…

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/sep/09/foreign-aid-which-countries-are-the-most-generous

I’m in the UK.

It’s not exactly what you’re looking for - but am sure you’ll be able to extrapolate the data required.

.

For me, it’s not a competition on who does and doesn’t provide aid - or percentage - just that as long we can and do provide it if we can. And with no limits on education attached if possible.

(though well done the Swedes 😃)

And if I remember correctly, I agreed with your final sentiment in an earlier post, so there is no need for posturing. Both our countries have given greatly. I don’t know the Health Care System status of the U.K. at present but I can tell you that here in America despite what some say our Health Care System is not what it could or needs to be based on the fact that even our own Military Veterans have been dying due to poorly funded and managed systems. I’m not saying we shouldn’t help at all, I’m saying as you did, that as long as we can provide it without limitations to it’s dispersal that we do so while still being able to properly care for our own.

It’s not posturing - you asked for an answer and got one. The rest of your statement - in relation to a conversation about the gag rule - is a deflection and irrelevant to it.

The removal of the gag rule will not cost the US more money.

Now, if you’d like to talk about the wider effects of allocation funds from the Govts to it’s people at home and abroad that is a different conversation. As is the current state of the NHS.

They were my views, not deflection, and I don’t know what the cost WILL be at the moment because I don’t have any information on what is now being asked for and what the actual costs are. If you know then share them please. I want to have an informed discussion, not a pissing match, over it.

There is no monetary cost to the US in having charities, health groups and medical professionals being allowed to talk about abortion in countries where their is help is needed, and education an important factor therein.

If you think there is - there is a little chance of ‘informed discussion’.

I’ll leave it there.

I said absolutely nothing about associating a cost with verbal discussion of abortion, none. I am talking about actual medical/surgical services/supplies only and their dispersion.

TV’s Frink said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/01/24/donald-trump-just-forfeited-in-his-first-fight-with-china/?utm_term=.331fd8290e85

I could not even take this article seriously because it’s author spent a majority of the page talking shit about a President he didn’t vote for. Definitely a bummer because I thought I was going to learn something.

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

doubleofive said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

http://www.vox.com/identities/2017/1/23/14356582/trump-global-gag-rule-abortion

The global gag rule goes much further than simply banning US foreign aid from paying for abortions directly — which is already the law, and which has its own detrimental consequences for women.

Instead, the gag rule tries to control how international organizations use their own funds, raised from other sources. Just like Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood in the United States, it’s an attempt to stop abortion from happening by forcing organizations that provide it to make a choice: stop providing or promoting abortion, or lose the large amounts of funding that you get from the US government to support your other medical services.

The reality is simple and brutal. Reinstating the global gag rule will not reduce abortions. Sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, had higher abortion rates after George W. Bush reinstated the gag rule, because it reduced women’s access to contraception and caused more unwanted pregnancies, which women then chose to terminate.

The gag rule will, however, lead to more women dying across the developing world. Marie Stopes International, a major global family planning organization, estimates that without alternative funding, the loss of its services alone will cause 6.5 million unintended pregnancies, 2.2 million abortions, 2.1 million unsafe abortions, and 21,700 maternal deaths just in Trump’s first term, from 2017 to 2020. The organization says it will also be prevented from reaching 1.5 million women with contraception every year.

Studies conducted by PAI have shown that every time the global gag rule returns, more women in developing countries bear unwanted pregnancies, die or become disabled due to unsafe abortions, or lose crucial medical care.

So much for respecting life.

Directed at personal use of one’s body ONLY, taking precautions or abstinence is every persons right and responsibility if they could not afford the possible outcome. In cases of medical necessity (life/death of fetus/mother) or sexual assault/attack, I would think they’d be wise enough to allow it. I’m not them nor am I privy to the actual details of all this gag rule encompasses so this is just my opinion based on information I know of.

If any organization mentions the word “abortion”, they can no longer have any American government funding, even for contraception. There is no wisdom to any of this. You can’t expect the entire third world to stop having sex because they can’t get condoms anymore.

You mean they cannot abstain? They must have sex constantly to survive like breathing air? They shouldn’t need American funding to take care of their own country should they? Those countries cannot raise the money themselves and/or find better ways to educate their populations on their own?

Some are refugees, some are uneducated, some will have been made pregnant against their will (though cannot for fear of safety disclose that). Some will be in countries where there is hardly any government in place - or the little Govt there is, is corrupt, inept - or not trusted.

Thankfully a few charities do great work in places like this - and as stated in the vox thread above - it seems that many of these places will lose access to birth control, education and the services as a whole (along with the results and effects last time the ‘gag rule’ was in place).

For people on the ground there it’ll be a confusing time - possibilities will have changed, leading to confusion and trust issues - and education now has limited options too.

It also seems likely that pooling resources with other countries may well be lost too.

more info can be found here:-

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2709326/
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8527977/trump-abortion-global-gag-rule/

I did say this prior to the post you quote …

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

http://www.vox.com/identities/2017/1/23/14356582/trump-global-gag-rule-abortion

The global gag rule goes much further than simply banning US foreign aid from paying for abortions directly — which is already the law, and which has its own detrimental consequences for women.

Instead, the gag rule tries to control how international organizations use their own funds, raised from other sources. Just like Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood in the United States, it’s an attempt to stop abortion from happening by forcing organizations that provide it to make a choice: stop providing or promoting abortion, or lose the large amounts of funding that you get from the US government to support your other medical services.

The reality is simple and brutal. Reinstating the global gag rule will not reduce abortions. Sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, had higher abortion rates after George W. Bush reinstated the gag rule, because it reduced women’s access to contraception and caused more unwanted pregnancies, which women then chose to terminate.

The gag rule will, however, lead to more women dying across the developing world. Marie Stopes International, a major global family planning organization, estimates that without alternative funding, the loss of its services alone will cause 6.5 million unintended pregnancies, 2.2 million abortions, 2.1 million unsafe abortions, and 21,700 maternal deaths just in Trump’s first term, from 2017 to 2020. The organization says it will also be prevented from reaching 1.5 million women with contraception every year.

Studies conducted by PAI have shown that every time the global gag rule returns, more women in developing countries bear unwanted pregnancies, die or become disabled due to unsafe abortions, or lose crucial medical care.

So much for respecting life.

Directed at personal use of one’s body ONLY, taking precautions or abstinence is every persons right and responsibility if they could not afford the possible outcome. In cases of medical necessity (life/death of fetus/mother) or sexual assault/attack, I would think they’d be wise enough to allow it. I’m not them nor am I privy to the actual details of all this gag rule encompasses so this is just my opinion based on information I know of.

I most certainly understand the roadblocks involved. I also consider that, in this day and age, people are far more aware due to all the education that was created when such dilemmas arose overseas. Does that knowledge just disappear? Do all those who’ve learned just forget? These are questions I cannot answer but I am glad there are other avenues.

I read it - but it didn’t include the possibilites/scenarios - or effects of - that I asked.

Education is key to this (and many things in life) - a young mother may not have the education, or access to education, as someone who had better education just a few years ago. As stated, education has just changed due to re-introduction of the gag-rule.

Word of mouth is key in environments that these charities are struggling with - and highlighting. Education is always in flux - and without doubt ‘all the education that was created when such dilemmas arose’ will indeed disappear over time - or as stated above not be in-effect for say refugees, remote places, or places where there is little trust in the Govt - or corruption - or in places where the mother may not be able to admit she has been raped for fear of reprisal or social stigma etc.

If removal of the gag-rule can save more lives - and educate people to all of the possibilities - then surely that is the better outcome for those that are likely to be affected the most, no?

If it can be done in such a way so as not to negate or remove the care of the citizens whose money is used to provide it, then yes, I would agree completely. I should state that I do not believe that it should be America’s responsibility alone to provide such things. There is an entire planet of people and nations that should bare some of the weight with regards to helping out neighboring societies that might need that little extra.

Other countries provide aid too (as mentioned in the articles linked above) and many provide aid without condition of ‘gag rules’ like has just been re-introduced.

The removal of the gag rule (or full range of options or education) - is not going to cost the US more money.

I asked you about your country because you asked me about mine. You did not answer my question so I’m going to assume the answer is no unless you just forgot what I asked.

Deflection indeed.

Don’t assume - where’s the facts in that? Though why assume ‘no’?, why not ‘yes’ or a similar amount? Why not look it up?

These are rhetorical questions - you don’t have to answer them.

.

In case you are genuinely interested in the answer to your question ‘Does your country offer equal amount of assistance as America (in equal ratio to your population), in tax payer dollars, to these causes while taking proper care of it’s people at home?’

Upon entering the term ‘percentage per population for overseas aid’ into the search bar this appears top…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors

This is the next…

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/sep/09/foreign-aid-which-countries-are-the-most-generous

I’m in the UK.

It’s not exactly what you’re looking for - but am sure you’ll be able to extrapolate the data required.

.

For me, it’s not a competition on who does and doesn’t provide aid - or percentage - just that as long we can and do provide it if we can. And with no limits on education attached if possible.

(though well done the Swedes 😃)

And if I remember correctly, I agreed with your final sentiment in an earlier post, so there is no need for posturing. Both our countries have given greatly. I don’t know the Health Care System status of the U.K. at present but I can tell you that here in America despite what some say our Health Care System is not what it could or needs to be based on the fact that even our own Military Veterans have been dying due to poorly funded and managed systems. I’m not saying we shouldn’t help at all, I’m saying as you did, that as long as we can provide it without limitations to it’s dispersal that we do so while still being able to properly care for our own.

It’s not posturing - you asked for an answer and got one. The rest of your statement - in relation to a conversation about the gag rule - is a deflection and irrelevant to it.

The removal of the gag rule will not cost the US more money.

Now, if you’d like to talk about the wider effects of allocation funds from the Govts to it’s people at home and abroad that is a different conversation. As is the current state of the NHS.

They were my views, not deflection, and I don’t know what the cost WILL be at the moment because I don’t have any information on what is now being asked for and what the actual costs are. If you know then share them please. I want to have an informed discussion, not a pissing match, over it.

TV’s Frink said:

TV’s Frink said:

Some great posts from oojason and Tyr today.

Whoops, forgot to mention 005’s posts too because they’re on the previous page.

Please grow up. If you can’t add anything to the discussion then why make “bait” posts?

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

I have long been a proponent of our country taking care of it’s own citizens instead of leaving them to rot while we take care of everyone else’s. I don’t suggest we cut ties 100% if it can be helped but I would like to see our Veteran’s, our starving children, our abused citizens, our homeless families, and the like have the same possibility at survival as we’ve given to so many others abroad over the years.

Can you provide evidence of how the introduction of the ‘gag rule’ will affect the ability of your country to take care of it’s own citizens?

I don’t have exact dollar amounts and I don’t think any have been published as of yet. Does your country offer equal amount of assistance as America (in equal ratio to your population), in tax payer dollars, to these causes while taking proper care of it’s people at home?

I wasn’t asking for a dollar amount/ratio - I was asking for evidence of how the gag rule will affect the ability of your country to take care of it’s own citizens.

Have you an answer? - or do you have another deflection?

I do not have enough information to give you a solid answer or the specific answer you seem to be fishing for and I’ve said as much earlier.

So that’s a ‘no’ then, thank you.

No fishing - just asking about your claims in your posts.

Yes, you were fishing. That is why you only answered my question to you with another question … deflection. And they weren’t mine or anyone else’s claims of anything, they are some of the reasons the President has given for why it is happening. I understand the reasoning but I also believe it should not be a 100% gag rule.

FTR, until I have more information and a better understanding of the consequences I will publicly say my answer is, NO.

😃

You’ll need to give me a little time to answer a question I’m not well versed in - and therefore asking questions on.

Though the answer is above.

Jetrell Fo said:

I most certainly understand the roadblocks involved. I also consider that, in this day and age, people are far more aware due to all the education that was created when such dilemmas arose overseas. Does that knowledge just disappear? Do all those who’ve learned just forget? These are questions I cannot answer but I am glad there are other avenues.

I have long been a proponent of our country taking care of it’s own citizens instead of leaving them to rot while we take care of everyone else’s. I don’t suggest we cut ties 100% if it can be helped but I would like to see our Veteran’s, our starving children, our abused citizens, our homeless families, and the like have the same possibility at survival as we’ve given to so many others abroad over the years.

and I then asked ‘Can you provide evidence of how the introduction of the ‘gag rule’ will affect the ability of your country to take care of it’s own citizens?’

Those are your words in your post in reply to a question of mine - not your President’s - not fishing - so don’t try and claim otherwise.

We just got done agreeing and now you’re going to back pedal only to start slapping, really? They are my words based on some of the reasons he has given and my beliefs. I am perfectly happy to clarify it too.

TV’s Frink said:

Some great posts from oojason and Tyr today.

No “bait” posts please. It has been a good conversation, why ruin it?

Thank you.

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

doubleofive said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

http://www.vox.com/identities/2017/1/23/14356582/trump-global-gag-rule-abortion

The global gag rule goes much further than simply banning US foreign aid from paying for abortions directly — which is already the law, and which has its own detrimental consequences for women.

Instead, the gag rule tries to control how international organizations use their own funds, raised from other sources. Just like Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood in the United States, it’s an attempt to stop abortion from happening by forcing organizations that provide it to make a choice: stop providing or promoting abortion, or lose the large amounts of funding that you get from the US government to support your other medical services.

The reality is simple and brutal. Reinstating the global gag rule will not reduce abortions. Sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, had higher abortion rates after George W. Bush reinstated the gag rule, because it reduced women’s access to contraception and caused more unwanted pregnancies, which women then chose to terminate.

The gag rule will, however, lead to more women dying across the developing world. Marie Stopes International, a major global family planning organization, estimates that without alternative funding, the loss of its services alone will cause 6.5 million unintended pregnancies, 2.2 million abortions, 2.1 million unsafe abortions, and 21,700 maternal deaths just in Trump’s first term, from 2017 to 2020. The organization says it will also be prevented from reaching 1.5 million women with contraception every year.

Studies conducted by PAI have shown that every time the global gag rule returns, more women in developing countries bear unwanted pregnancies, die or become disabled due to unsafe abortions, or lose crucial medical care.

So much for respecting life.

Directed at personal use of one’s body ONLY, taking precautions or abstinence is every persons right and responsibility if they could not afford the possible outcome. In cases of medical necessity (life/death of fetus/mother) or sexual assault/attack, I would think they’d be wise enough to allow it. I’m not them nor am I privy to the actual details of all this gag rule encompasses so this is just my opinion based on information I know of.

If any organization mentions the word “abortion”, they can no longer have any American government funding, even for contraception. There is no wisdom to any of this. You can’t expect the entire third world to stop having sex because they can’t get condoms anymore.

You mean they cannot abstain? They must have sex constantly to survive like breathing air? They shouldn’t need American funding to take care of their own country should they? Those countries cannot raise the money themselves and/or find better ways to educate their populations on their own?

Some are refugees, some are uneducated, some will have been made pregnant against their will (though cannot for fear of safety disclose that). Some will be in countries where there is hardly any government in place - or the little Govt there is, is corrupt, inept - or not trusted.

Thankfully a few charities do great work in places like this - and as stated in the vox thread above - it seems that many of these places will lose access to birth control, education and the services as a whole (along with the results and effects last time the ‘gag rule’ was in place).

For people on the ground there it’ll be a confusing time - possibilities will have changed, leading to confusion and trust issues - and education now has limited options too.

It also seems likely that pooling resources with other countries may well be lost too.

more info can be found here:-

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2709326/
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8527977/trump-abortion-global-gag-rule/

I did say this prior to the post you quote …

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

http://www.vox.com/identities/2017/1/23/14356582/trump-global-gag-rule-abortion

The global gag rule goes much further than simply banning US foreign aid from paying for abortions directly — which is already the law, and which has its own detrimental consequences for women.

Instead, the gag rule tries to control how international organizations use their own funds, raised from other sources. Just like Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood in the United States, it’s an attempt to stop abortion from happening by forcing organizations that provide it to make a choice: stop providing or promoting abortion, or lose the large amounts of funding that you get from the US government to support your other medical services.

The reality is simple and brutal. Reinstating the global gag rule will not reduce abortions. Sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, had higher abortion rates after George W. Bush reinstated the gag rule, because it reduced women’s access to contraception and caused more unwanted pregnancies, which women then chose to terminate.

The gag rule will, however, lead to more women dying across the developing world. Marie Stopes International, a major global family planning organization, estimates that without alternative funding, the loss of its services alone will cause 6.5 million unintended pregnancies, 2.2 million abortions, 2.1 million unsafe abortions, and 21,700 maternal deaths just in Trump’s first term, from 2017 to 2020. The organization says it will also be prevented from reaching 1.5 million women with contraception every year.

Studies conducted by PAI have shown that every time the global gag rule returns, more women in developing countries bear unwanted pregnancies, die or become disabled due to unsafe abortions, or lose crucial medical care.

So much for respecting life.

Directed at personal use of one’s body ONLY, taking precautions or abstinence is every persons right and responsibility if they could not afford the possible outcome. In cases of medical necessity (life/death of fetus/mother) or sexual assault/attack, I would think they’d be wise enough to allow it. I’m not them nor am I privy to the actual details of all this gag rule encompasses so this is just my opinion based on information I know of.

I most certainly understand the roadblocks involved. I also consider that, in this day and age, people are far more aware due to all the education that was created when such dilemmas arose overseas. Does that knowledge just disappear? Do all those who’ve learned just forget? These are questions I cannot answer but I am glad there are other avenues.

I read it - but it didn’t include the possibilites/scenarios - or effects of - that I asked.

Education is key to this (and many things in life) - a young mother may not have the education, or access to education, as someone who had better education just a few years ago. As stated, education has just changed due to re-introduction of the gag-rule.

Word of mouth is key in environments that these charities are struggling with - and highlighting. Education is always in flux - and without doubt ‘all the education that was created when such dilemmas arose’ will indeed disappear over time - or as stated above not be in-effect for say refugees, remote places, or places where there is little trust in the Govt - or corruption - or in places where the mother may not be able to admit she has been raped for fear of reprisal or social stigma etc.

If removal of the gag-rule can save more lives - and educate people to all of the possibilities - then surely that is the better outcome for those that are likely to be affected the most, no?

If it can be done in such a way so as not to negate or remove the care of the citizens whose money is used to provide it, then yes, I would agree completely. I should state that I do not believe that it should be America’s responsibility alone to provide such things. There is an entire planet of people and nations that should bare some of the weight with regards to helping out neighboring societies that might need that little extra.

Other countries provide aid too (as mentioned in the articles linked above) and many provide aid without condition of ‘gag rules’ like has just been re-introduced.

The removal of the gag rule (or full range of options or education) - is not going to cost the US more money.

I asked you about your country because you asked me about mine. You did not answer my question so I’m going to assume the answer is no unless you just forgot what I asked.

Deflection indeed.

Don’t assume - where’s the facts in that? Though why assume ‘no’?, why not ‘yes’ or a similar amount? Why not look it up?

These are rhetorical questions - you don’t have to answer them.

.

In case you are genuinely interested in the answer to your question ‘Does your country offer equal amount of assistance as America (in equal ratio to your population), in tax payer dollars, to these causes while taking proper care of it’s people at home?’

Upon entering the term ‘percentage per population for overseas aid’ into the search bar this appears top…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors

This is the next…

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/sep/09/foreign-aid-which-countries-are-the-most-generous

I’m in the UK.

It’s not exactly what you’re looking for - but am sure you’ll be able to extrapolate the data required.

.

For me, it’s not a competition on who does and doesn’t provide aid - or percentage - just that as long we can and do provide it if we can. And with no limits on education attached if possible.

(though well done the Swedes 😃)

And if I remember correctly, I agreed with your final sentiment in an earlier post, so there is no need for posturing. Both our countries have given greatly. I don’t know the Health Care System status of the U.K. at present but I can tell you that here in America despite what some say our Health Care System is not what it could or needs to be based on the fact that even our own Military Veterans have been dying due to poorly funded and managed systems. I’m not saying we shouldn’t help at all, I’m saying as you did, that as long as we can provide it without limitations to it’s dispersal that we do so while still being able to properly care for our own.

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

I have long been a proponent of our country taking care of it’s own citizens instead of leaving them to rot while we take care of everyone else’s. I don’t suggest we cut ties 100% if it can be helped but I would like to see our Veteran’s, our starving children, our abused citizens, our homeless families, and the like have the same possibility at survival as we’ve given to so many others abroad over the years.

Can you provide evidence of how the introduction of the ‘gag rule’ will affect the ability of your country to take care of it’s own citizens?

I don’t have exact dollar amounts and I don’t think any have been published as of yet. Does your country offer equal amount of assistance as America (in equal ratio to your population), in tax payer dollars, to these causes while taking proper care of it’s people at home?

I wasn’t asking for a dollar amount/ratio - I was asking for evidence of how the gag rule will affect the ability of your country to take care of it’s own citizens.

Have you an answer? - or do you have another deflection?

I do not have enough information to give you a solid answer or the specific answer you seem to be fishing for and I’ve said as much earlier.

So that’s a ‘no’ then, thank you.

No fishing - just asking about your claims in your posts.

Yes, you were fishing. That is why you only answered my question to you with another question … deflection. And they weren’t mine or anyone else’s claims of anything, they are some of the reasons the President has given for why it is happening. I understand the reasoning but I also believe it should not be a 100% gag rule.

FTR, until I have more information and a better understanding of the consequences I will publicly say my answer is, NO.

😃

Tyrphanax said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Tyrphanax said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Tyrphanax said:

But it’s not about actually saving lives or preventing abortions, it’s about punishing people for being people.

I disagree with you on this opinion. I don’t remember anyone ever saying it was being done to punish people for being people. If I’m wrong, please direct me to who said it and where so that I may correct myself.

Of course it’s not explicitly stated because that would look awful. No party is going to come out and say “we’re doing this to be mean” because that’s fucking stupid.

But realistically, it’s either that or they’re more dense than osmium because the way they’re going about it (cut funding and preach abstinence-only) is not only unrealistic and entirely out of touch with reality, but incredibly stupid.

Nobody goes out to have an abortion because it’s a rip-roarin’ good time. People do it because they have no other option. You give them options before it comes to that and the worst-case scenario will decline.

#1. I never said abortion is a rip-roaring good time.

#2. Even when all options are on the table it is never guaranteed that it reaches all the same people that need options.

#3. I didn’t see anything about an “abstinence only” policy anywhere. I also never suggested it.

I don’t know why you’re making this into a person attack, because it isn’t. I’m talking about why the policy is bad and why the current administration is wrong.

Then please state it that way. Being so general leaves the door open for miscommunication. This is a tough discussion and I don’t want anyone having to feel like they can’t be a part of it for such reasons.

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

oojason said:

Jetrell Fo said:

I have long been a proponent of our country taking care of it’s own citizens instead of leaving them to rot while we take care of everyone else’s. I don’t suggest we cut ties 100% if it can be helped but I would like to see our Veteran’s, our starving children, our abused citizens, our homeless families, and the like have the same possibility at survival as we’ve given to so many others abroad over the years.

Can you provide evidence of how the introduction of the ‘gag rule’ will affect the ability of your country to take care of it’s own citizens?

I don’t have exact dollar amounts and I don’t think any have been published as of yet. Does your country offer equal amount of assistance as America (in equal ratio to your population), in tax payer dollars, to these causes while taking proper care of it’s people at home?

I wasn’t asking for a dollar amount/ratio - I was asking for evidence of how the gag rule will affect the ability of your country to take care of it’s own citizens.

Have you an answer? - or do you have another deflection?

I do not have enough information to give you a solid answer or the specific answer you seem to be fishing for and I’ve said as much earlier.