tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-848541039913019341.post6208850636573584372..comments2023-10-01T06:34:39.919-06:00Comments on Random Musings of a Tormented Mind: Get In My Va-jay-jay!KGouldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05537080163900313558noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-848541039913019341.post-31223842040711710892012-05-14T23:45:13.585-06:002012-05-14T23:45:13.585-06:00Yes it is still a choice, but you are talking abou...Yes it is still a choice, but you are talking about driving a car (or not) as opposed to surgically removing a living being from a uterus. You are also talking about tax credits for sports that you may or may not choose to put your children into. You are receiving a tax credit, tax back from the income tax that you already paid to the govt in every pay cheque and get a little tiny bit back in return (or a lower looking income total and then you might qualify for a rebate). That is a totally different kettle of fish than someone receiving an entirely free abortion - and if you are to believe the media supporting this like in the ad, then you would know that they say most people who have abortions cannot afford to have a child and therefore this helps in the long-run too. If they cannot afford to have a child, chances are they did not pay much, if anything, into the tax system so they are not even getting anything 'back' by using this service. <br /><br />And I also think you will find an awful lot of govt involvement in future 'green' energy. My city is planning a giant wind farm that we have already been charged for in our utility bills for over a year, despite the fact it hasnt even started yet. The city is putting a big chunk of money down and that is govt, last time I checked. There has been a windmill farm in the Pincher Creek area for well over a decade, also partially subsidized. The city of Calgary boasts that it's C-train line (govt subsidized at 2 or 3 levels) is 'wind farm energy' because the city buys invisible credits from that wind farm to equal the amount of energy used on the ctrain system. And those are just examples from Southern Alberta, the gas and oil capital of Canada. Imagine what green energy subsidies go on in other provinces. <br /><br />What my point was in the original post is that the video is saying to get the govt out of women's personal business, while at the same time demanding that they get INTO it by providing affordable access to it. Um okay. Get out, but gimme the money. Isn't that always the way? If the govt was to say that no more women were allowed to have abortions at all, or use the pill, or the morning after pill combo - then THAT is something to scream about. But if it is to say 'stop regulating, but give us the money for it', that is still govt involvement no matter what. People may choose to use the system, but they are not choosing to pay for it like you are in your examples. You choose to buy a car but do not get a subsidy to pay for the whole thing. You choose to put kids in sports camp or music or dance, and pay for it up front, and get a few pennies back from what YOU paid in yourself. I do not see how that compares to a woman going to planned parenthood and booking a medical procedure and not paying a dime, or paying a token amount. In the city near DC where my friend lives, women pay $16 total for the coun.selling and abortion. Or they pay about $4 or less for the pill each month, if not getting it totally free. They are not paying up front and getting a bit of a rebate, they are relying on you to fund their choice almost entirely. And then crabbing if someone says they should not receive that full funding anymore (as per govt heads talking about cutting funding to planned parenthood)KGouldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05537080163900313558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-848541039913019341.post-38112857838360140562012-05-09T07:36:52.468-06:002012-05-09T07:36:52.468-06:00I don't want to belabour the point but I just ...I don't want to belabour the point but I just don't see how someone paying for something or subsidizing something is giving them any say in what you choose to do.<br /><br />It may make it easier for me to make a choice one way or another, but it's still my choice. <br /><br />For example, the Canadian government heavily subsidizes the very profitable oil industry and is gutting environmental regulation to help the oil industry. This makes it a lot cheaper to drive my car, but it is still my choice whether to drive my car or take the bike or walk to work. No one is "having a say" in how I choose to go to work. <br /><br />Same with the many many many tax credits the Conservatives have brought in (and others have brought in before them). Would you say that the Conservatives are "having a say" in my choice of sports camp (tax credit) over computer camp (no tax credit), or are they just trying to influence individual behaviour but ultimately they don't really have a say?Ted Bettshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06223729391428982448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-848541039913019341.post-29204806843545965752012-05-08T20:19:15.970-06:002012-05-08T20:19:15.970-06:00the first time I listened to the clip, I agreed wi...the first time I listened to the clip, I agreed with all of it because I was focused on the very in-your-face argument of it being my vagina, not your's. however, when I listened for the second time, I focused more carefully on each word and realized that there was equal mention of two subjects - the right to choose, and govt provision affordable access to birth control. The right to choose argument is not what I have a problem with and you should see in my original post that I outright said if the govt tried to ban abortion, they would be right back in the vagina and I do not agree with that. I also said I do not believe that the govt should legislate on this issue. <br /><br />But funding is what I concentrated on because there were two mentions of it in the video, along with two mentions of 'choice' - a 50-50 split. Having the govt decide what it's going to fund, how much, where, what kind, etc etc etc is still allowing the govt to have some say in your vagina, plain and simple. <br /><br />the video is quite clever, it gets a message out there for sure - but interlaced is the message that govt should PROVIDE birth control, which is not the govt staying out of our business, but in fact allowing the govt to remain in. If you start demanding things of the govt, they have more control. History has certainly shown that so why do we never learn?<br /><br />If the video had simply said that the govt should provide access to birth control, or better yet, not block access to birth control, then I could have let that slide. But it didn't. It said provide access to AFFORDABLE birth control. The only way that can be achieved is if the govt got it's hands right in there and put controls, checks and balances, paperwork, personnel, committees, etc in there along with money from the tax coffers to pay for all of the above. That's govt involvement in the vagina, in women's lives. They like it if they get what they want, but don't like it if they don't. How about NO govt involvement in personal matters? that should be the ticket - but it never is.<br /><br />Because funding is used for this stuff now, the taxpayers DO have a say in what is done with the money, as do the politicians. That's how I look at it and I have talked about that on this blog before. If someone does not have interest (money) in an issue, they don't have much say. They can have an opinion, but they don't have any control. Start throwing money at an issue, and it becomes EVERYONE'S issue. That is how these things work.<br /><br />bottom line, if you don't want anyone having a say in what you do with your vagina, stop expecting people to pay for it. Seems simple to me.KGouldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05537080163900313558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-848541039913019341.post-90933781299792013792012-05-08T10:29:55.505-06:002012-05-08T10:29:55.505-06:00How is giving someone the right to choose letting ...How is giving someone the right to choose letting the government choose/meddle/in?<br /><br />You may have a point about government funding health to be a bad thing, but it is a very different and separate thing. You are mixing apples and oranges since no one is requiring anyone to take birth control or have an abortion or attend a government funded hospital.Ted Bettshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06223729391428982448noreply@blogger.com