logo Sign In

oojason

User Group
Members
Join date
5-May-2004
Last activity
3-Jul-2025
Posts
8,758

Post History

Post
#1038749
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

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.

Post
#1038741
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

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.

Post
#1038727
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

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 😃)

Post
#1038720
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

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.

Post
#1038716
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

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?

Post
#1038714
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

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.

Post
#1038707
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

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?

Post
#1038689
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

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?

.

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?

Post
#1038679
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Jetrell Fo said:

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.

‘He is trying to help American tax payers have more say over how their hard earned dollars are utilized.’ - could you provide evidence for this please?

Post
#1038677
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

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/

Post
#1038063
Topic
Does anyone have scans of the 2006 Limited Edition Trilogy DVD covers?
Time

Depheros said:

oojason said:

You have to register there to be able to download the covers - though they are usually ‘decent to very high quality’ covers and have their own forums too.

Don’t you have to pay in order to download uncompressed covers on that site? It’s ridiculous.

I think they have a Gold Membership thing for $10 annually where you can download any of the full size artwork there as often as you want (think the $10 is to help cover costs of hosting all the stuff they have there). Though for regular members you can download them for free (just in a smaller resolution/size).

Those covers above are in 6406x4293 for Gold Members - so IF* you only get half of that size for regular free members they’re still good quality covers for a 5 minute signup and browse around (and you may like it and stick around etc).

(* - I don’t know if you actually do get half size resolution - or smaller or larger than half sizes for free members).

The FAQ on there probably has more info on it - http://www.freecovers.net/faq

Post
#1038053
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

NeverarGreat said:

Not that it is of particular importance in the grand scheme of things, but I was digging around online to find better images of Trump’s Inauguration crowd vs Obama’s, since most outlets crop the images before the new buildings at the National Mall. Here is a comparison from Reuters shown on Japan Times, with the Trump picture allegedly taken at 12:01:

National Mall Comparison
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/01/21/world/politics-diplomacy-world/trump-draws-far-smaller-inaugural-crowd-obama/#.WIWx6X1WJ8G

And a CBS report with the same image:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/photos-president-trumps-inauguration-crowd-vs-president-obamas/

An even more expansive shot, from slightly earlier:
National Mall

I looked everywhere for a similar image for Trump’s inauguration, but I think it’s pretty safe to say there was nobody hanging out back there in the boonies.

Well, to be fair mate it seems camera improvements may not be as good as we’ve been led to believe…

Post
#1037840
Topic
Does anyone have scans of the 2006 Limited Edition Trilogy DVD covers?
Time

I think you’d have to check just to make sure they are the actual retails dvd covers, but…

The silver set can be found here…

ANH - http://www.freecovers.net/view/0/8e3e904f1af4cd5d84af838866093054/front.html
ESB - http://www.freecovers.net/view/0/423f407e20228178f9161d5bf3e7b06d/front.html
ROTJ - http://www.freecovers.net/view/0/fc384abb77d8d273cbca8c24de455736/front.html

The gold set can be found here…

ANH - http://www.freecovers.net/view/0/4b825841e87b5b3685b237c809c4bfc6/front.html
ESB - http://www.freecovers.net/view/0/1224d247cd982a8c5b5af286d3c45b98/front.html
ROTJ - http://www.freecovers.net/view/0/64b0d25654f39ae3b7cc47b8f89fe811/front.html

Freecovers.net does have a decent search function - so if they aren’t the exact covers you’re looking you may be able to find them still…

You have to register there to be able to download the covers - though they are usually ‘decent to very high quality’ covers and have their own forums too.

Good luck with it 😃

 

In the ‘star wars dvd covers’ thread on here - http://originaltrilogy.com/topic/Star-Wars-DVD-Covers/id/741/page/178 - there are lots of alternative/edited/altered covers to those 2006 versions (and a lot more besides).

Post
#1037643
Topic
Where to get boxes?
Time

Have to say I’ve never seen one for sale mate - it seems most of the people on here make their own from scratch - or customise other old boxsets they no longer use, or have gone out a bought an older cheap one.

Maybe some of the dvd cover forums will have a better idea - or a link to where the film distributors buy theirs from (though could be looking at a significant amount of minimum orders etc?)

Good luck with though mate - be great to find a good value-for-money place that does 😃

.

May be worth asking in the comments section on these type of ‘make your own dvd box set’ videos too? Hopefully you’ll get an answer or a link etc:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3QvlNLE0Iw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KF1ikJEvOfc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUoyr33kSFU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31oIc4uO8SQ

Post
#1036519
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

oojason said:

ferris209 said:

Nope, it doesn’t bother me one bit. Furthermore, I absolutely doubt that we can either change or affect it whatsoever. Besides, a warmer earth even by a degree is better for us, it allows more crops to flourish among many other things.

Plus, shall I again remind you “recorded history” is only the last 140 years? Unless you believe a young earth, then that’s pretty bad science to base an entire theory about the planet based only on .0000000001% of the earths history.

Meteorological charts go back to 1850 (thermometers etc) - so you’re getting on for 170 years. Still a small portion of the Earth’s history - but a reasonable point to measure when factoring in comparisons for the age of the Second Industrial Revolution (factories, urbanisation, smoke, grit, dust, grime, gas and chemicals, coal and mining taking place on a more ‘industrial’ scale leading to engines - powering and use of).

.

To the later question of ‘So, do you think it was hotter or colder during the Middle Ages?’ - that’s a wider-ranging question, when and where? At which point in the Middle Ages? Circa 1000 when some believe there to have been the Little Ice Age? Or the Warming Period in SouthEast Asia & parts of Northern Europe around the same time?

Am off too bed now (late in the UK) - but am curious as to your answer and why (as well as where and when).

You decide.

You want me to decide your answers to my questions - and also why you posed them?

Is it becoming clearer why I wouldn’t answer his stupid questions?

Abundantly Mr Frink, abundantly.

(or perhaps ferris209 shall answer your question - given his novel approach to conversations, questions, answers and ‘deciding’ 😉)

Post
#1036473
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

ferris209 said:

Nope, it doesn’t bother me one bit. Furthermore, I absolutely doubt that we can either change or affect it whatsoever. Besides, a warmer earth even by a degree is better for us, it allows more crops to flourish among many other things.

Plus, shall I again remind you “recorded history” is only the last 140 years? Unless you believe a young earth, then that’s pretty bad science to base an entire theory about the planet based only on .0000000001% of the earths history.

Meteorological charts go back to 1850 (thermometers etc) - so you’re getting on for 170 years. Still a small portion of the Earth’s history - but a reasonable point to measure when factoring in comparisons for the age of the Second Industrial Revolution (factories, urbanisation, smoke, grit, dust, grime, gas and chemicals, coal and mining taking place on a more ‘industrial’ scale leading to engines - powering and use of).

.

To the later question of ‘So, do you think it was hotter or colder during the Middle Ages?’ - that’s a wider-ranging question, when and where? At which point in the Middle Ages? Circa 1000 when some believe there to have been the Little Ice Age? Or the Warming Period in SouthEast Asia & parts of Northern Europe around the same time?

Am off too bed now (late in the UK) - but am curious as to your answer and why (as well as where and when).

You decide.

You want me to decide your answers to my questions - and also why you posed them?

Post
#1036352
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

ferris209 said:

Nope, it doesn’t bother me one bit. Furthermore, I absolutely doubt that we can either change or affect it whatsoever. Besides, a warmer earth even by a degree is better for us, it allows more crops to flourish among many other things.

Plus, shall I again remind you “recorded history” is only the last 140 years? Unless you believe a young earth, then that’s pretty bad science to base an entire theory about the planet based only on .0000000001% of the earths history.

Meteorological charts go back to 1850 (thermometers etc) - so you’re getting on for 170 years. Still a small portion of the Earth’s history - but a reasonable point to measure when factoring in comparisons for the age of the Second Industrial Revolution (factories, urbanisation, smoke, grit, dust, grime, gas and chemicals, coal and mining taking place on a more ‘industrial’ scale leading to engines - powering and use of).

.

To the later question of ‘So, do you think it was hotter or colder during the Middle Ages?’ - that’s a wider-ranging question, when and where? At which point in the Middle Ages? Circa 1000 when some believe there to have been the Little Ice Age? Or the Warming Period in SouthEast Asia & parts of Northern Europe around the same time?

Am off too bed now (late in the UK) - but am curious as to your answer and why (as well as where and when).