Jetrell Fo

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

ray_afraid said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

I sometimes ask myself what I would say if I were allowed the opportunity to travel back in time and speak to my teenaged self, but were only allowed around five minutes to do so before being yanked back to the present. I suppose I’d tell him this:

• Everyone is right, you’re wrong. Now start bathing everyday, not just on Sundays.
• You’ll never be a rocket scientist, but you’re no dumb ape either. Apply yourself, do your homework and complete your assignments on-time and to the best of your ability, get the best grades you can get, and strive towards graduation.
• Don’t sit on your lazy ass watching shitty episodes of Mutant X and say to yourself that a job is something you don’t have to worry about now 'cause it’s a concern for the future. Before you know it, the future will be now and then where will you be? Stuck living in a decaying shithole with a family you have nothing morally, spiritually, artistically, or intellectually in common with. Grown a pair, seek out a job, and prepare yourself for adulthood.
• You have homosexual tendencies within you. Don’t get all fearful and hateful; don’t become a loathsome homophobe. Accept those traits for what they are – a minor tinge in an otherwise wholly unshakable heterosexual make-up – and move on.
• You like a certain girl? Show her you possess sensitivity, thoughfulness, intelligence, and most of all respect for her as a woman and as a person. First impressions matter; don’t fuck up what can be a beautiful relationship – platonic or romantic – right from Day 1.
• Don’t allow your parents’ religion to define your reality, your morality, or your concept of God. Let the teachings of Christ and the findings of modern science inform you, not outmoded stories of gardens and trees and arks and floods and parting of seas.

This advice is as good to you now as it would have been then. Put it to good use, buddy. We don’t know each other personally, but hearing you make positive progress in life would make me happy. I’m pullin’ for ya!

JEDIT: I hope this didn’t come off as mocking or whatever. DrCrowTstarwars gave me a complex about encouraging others.

I started getting a complex about encouraging others especially over the last year until I finally decided when the new rules came that I had enough. We should never discourage each other in such a manner as it only divides us.

I am glad to see other folks making use of this thread. Everyone is welcome and no-one is unimportant, no-one.

Warbler said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV’s Frink said:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/3-days-into-trumps-presidency-45-percent-of-americans-disapprove-of-his-performance/

President Trump has been in office for three days, and on Monday he got his first job approval rating. Forty-five percent of Americans approve of Trump’s job performance; 45 percent disapprove, according to Gallup. That’s an improvement on his low favorability ratings, but it’s not good. Indeed, it’s the lowest job approval rating for any new president since at least Harry Truman in 1945 (as far back as we have polling), and it suggests Trump failed to take full advantage of the transition period to build support.

Every president before Trump started their first term with the approval of a majority of the country.

This means squat to everyone except those who disapprove of Trump himself for their own reasons.

This is an alternative fact.

This is an opinion.

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 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.

doubleofive 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?

So we can be the world’s police,

I believe Mr. Trump has already suggested they’ll be making cuts to this as well. He is trying to help American tax payers have more say over how their hard earned dollars are utilized. Maybe, even allowing these taxpayers to earn a better living, not just cutting people out for the sole purpose of killing them.

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?

suspiciouscoffee said:

EDIT: STUPID POST

There are no stupid posts here. If you need to get it out, get it out, no-one in this thread will heckle or taunt you for it.

😃

TV’s Frink said:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/3-days-into-trumps-presidency-45-percent-of-americans-disapprove-of-his-performance/

President Trump has been in office for three days, and on Monday he got his first job approval rating. Forty-five percent of Americans approve of Trump’s job performance; 45 percent disapprove, according to Gallup. That’s an improvement on his low favorability ratings, but it’s not good. Indeed, it’s the lowest job approval rating for any new president since at least Harry Truman in 1945 (as far back as we have polling), and it suggests Trump failed to take full advantage of the transition period to build support.

Every president before Trump started their first term with the approval of a majority of the country.

This means squat to everyone except those who disapprove of Trump himself for their own reasons.

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.

MalàStrana said:

It was a joke. Dark humor. America is such a PC place… (and so is becoming France, sadly…).

There is nothing PC about the fact that children should be allowed to be children and not media pawns for enjoyment.

bryanltj said:

Wow, is it still possible to get this?

http://originaltrilogy.com/topic/Post-in-this-thread-to-request-an-invite-to-MySpleenorg-you-MUST-read-the-first-post/id/8592

^sigh

DominicCobb said:

Jeebus said:

TV’s Frink said:

Ugh, Barron Trump should not be a target.

http://www.lifezette.com/popzette/snl-writer-bullies-donald-trumps-son/

(I even used a site I dislike to show how fair I am :p)

Already posted about it.

http://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1037522

I’m having a hard time forming a strong position on either side, probably because I actually thought the joke was funny. On one hand, Barron Trump is only like 10, and he may(?) be on the autism spectrum. On the other hand, he’s the son of the most powerful man in the world. I suppose it all comes down to whether making fun of Barron is “punching up” or “punching down”, or whether or not you subscribe to the “punching up/down” idea at all.

My big problem is with the people calling for her to be fired, it reeks of hypocrisy. All these anti-PC right-wingers immediately flip the script because it’s someone they like being joked about.

I mean yeah, pretty much. In my mind, it is a funny joke, but clearly not really one to say in public. It’s obviously pretty crass, but the outrage is remarkably ridiculous. She shouldn’t have tweeted it, sure, but who is this supposed to be offending? I certainly hope Barron doesn’t know about this, but who’s to say if Barron has twitter access or would even care. Most jokes harshed on by the PC police are ones that are furthering harmful stereotypes in one way or another. Besides somewhat making light of school shootings, there’s not much to truly be offended by. It really just exposes the PC complainers for the frauds they are.

What about Donald fucking Trump? He’s on record saying plenty of heinous shit and he gets a hosting gig at SNL and then later the presidency. But a comedy writer tweets a joke and gets fired for it.

Do you have children? Funny in private or not, Barron is 10, and he didn’t deserve to be gone after so nasty just for “the laugh”.

DominicCobb said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Nope. You can thank my pothead parents who never had steady jobs and my utter lack of close friends growing up for that.

I can’t even fathom this. I’ve been to the movies more times than I can count (and I have tried). Nowadays I go even more often, last year I think I went on average about 3 or 4 times a month (I’m crazy I know - though that really is an average, I went only once in August but 14 times in November, including stretch where I saw seven movies on seven consecutive days - I’m crazy, I know). If you go to the right places and see the right films, there’s honestly nothing quite as magical as seeing a film on the big screen. As someone who’s seen a fuckton at home and in theaters, there’s really no comparison.

Not saying you’d feel the same way, but you’ve got to try it.

Tyrphanax said:

Going to the movies alone is one of the best things ever.

Would you believe that I never went to the movies alone until once a couple months ago? Not that I specifically avoided it, I just never felt compelled to go all by myself, or ever had much reason. I can say, full heartedly, that I agree. I definitely plan on going alone again, there is a whole other dimension that goes with it.

I guess I should be glad I missed said debate. Anyways, you are correct, there is a lot of things going on in the world that nobody is discussing becasue all this piddly conversation seems to be more popular. I don’t know why.

darth_ender said:

Were, not we’re. I was reflecting on my enjoyment of word games, silly! But since we’re on the topic of weird games, uh…what did you have in mind?

Apparently, I got that one word wrong, LOL. Sorry.

CatBus said:

The past few days have been, to me, the definition of how Democrats always, always, always fall for it.

For the past decade or so, Republicans have made a habit of getting the name of the Democratic Party wrong, just for yuks. Democrats then spend half their available airtime/screentime/op-ed space explaining what the name of their party is, and their available space for talking about actual policy issues is diminished. Trump spends a surprising proportion of the primary talking about the size of his penis. Democrats then go into a tizzy about who was talking about what idiotic things in the Republican Party debates, instead of, you know, meaningful issues. Now we’re talking about crowd sizes instead of the DOJ switching sides on the Voting Rights Act, or any other major issue of the day.

Yeah, I get it. Getting the name of a major political party wrong makes you look like an idiot. Talking about your penis size makes you look like an idiot. Having a loud and public on-camera argument with reality makes you look like an idiot.

But you know what else makes you look like an idiot? When you’ve got actual important things to talk about and you let your opposition sideline your entire message with this nonsense. Ultimately, it does not matter what the names of our political parties are, or how big our respective body parts are, or if we’re really bad at counting people. But if we can spend four years talking about stuff that doesn’t matter when so much critical stuff is happening all around us, we are really, really done for.

I don’t remember any Presedential debate that ONLY discussed the size of anyone’s “member”. What was it you were watching?

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Show me one practical way that it does.

Jetrell Fo said:

Tyrphanax said:

Warbler said:

Tyrphanax said:

Trump seems to be signing an absolute shitload of executive orders despite having the entire government mostly in agreement with his policies.

and here I thought Republicans didn’t like rule by executive orders. I thought they wanted Congress to have a say in these things.

It’s okay when it’s their guy, but not when it’s a legally, democratically-elected President who’s being gaslit by the republican majority who openly vowed to gaslight him at every turn.

It’s a legally, democratically-elected Republican President that will have his own Congressional issues.

it matters in that it brings to question: is the above fact or alternative fact?

He is legally elected.

Whether he was democratically-elected by your definition thereof is completely meaningless.

We will have to agree to disagree.

You do know they don’t just change a policy or definition of just because one person doesn’t define it the same, right?

pittrek said:

This is fantastic news, thanks a lot for doing this. Two questions

1. are these the Shatner versions or the Nimoy versions, or a mix of both?
2. would you have a problem if parts of it appeared on youtube as a part of bigger documentaries?

This is what he said above …

Hi, sorry I’m new to this. I have all of them recorded in SP mode back when they aired, one or two are Nimoy and the rest are all Shatner, I don’t have time to transfer them so they have stayed in VHS all these years…

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Show me one practical way that it does.

Jetrell Fo said:

Tyrphanax said:

Warbler said:

Tyrphanax said:

Trump seems to be signing an absolute shitload of executive orders despite having the entire government mostly in agreement with his policies.

and here I thought Republicans didn’t like rule by executive orders. I thought they wanted Congress to have a say in these things.

It’s okay when it’s their guy, but not when it’s a legally, democratically-elected President who’s being gaslit by the republican majority who openly vowed to gaslight him at every turn.

It’s a legally, democratically-elected Republican President that will have his own Congressional issues.

it matters in that it brings to question: is the above fact or alternative fact?

IMO, you’re grasping thin air warbler, sorry.

A joke is a display of humour in which words are used within a specific and well-defined narrative structure to make people laugh. It takes the form of a story, usually with dialogue, and ends in a punch line. It is in the punch line that the audience becomes aware that the story contains a second, conflicting meaning. This can be done using a pun or other word play such as irony, a logical incompatibility, nonsense or other means. Linguist Robert Hetzron offers the definition:

A joke is a short humorous piece of oral literature in which the funniness culminates in the final sentence, called the punchline… In fact, the main condition is that the tension should reach its highest level at the very end. No continuation relieving the tension should be added. As for its being “oral,” it is true that jokes may appear printed, but when further transferred, there is no obligation to reproduce the text verbatim, as in the case of poetry.[1]