Page 19 of 49 FirstFirst ... 9171819202129 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 488

Thread: Late Clash on Abortion Shows Conservativesí Sway

  1. #181
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Late Clash on Abortion Shows Conservativesí Sway

    Quote Originally Posted by Kali View Post
    O.K. So you do agree with a womans right to choose. Good for you. My question for you now is why do you want babies to starve to death?
    Which babies are starving to death? I understand babies are being removed from the mother's womb but have they now designed a new method of getting rid of them?

  2. #182
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,461

    Re: Late Clash on Abortion Shows Conservativesí Sway

    Quote Originally Posted by OKgrannie View Post
    Planned Parenthood does that......if funding is cut, they'll probably have to cut those services.
    I meant state mandated sterilization.

  3. #183
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Late Clash on Abortion Shows Conservativesí Sway

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Yes.

    You were the one parsing definitions. You don't like this fact, so you are attempting to claim that I did. Doesn't work.

    You've lost. Move on.
    You were the one parsing definitions. I used a perfectly acceptable use of the word 'murder' and you tried to claim it was invalid -- yet I provided a link that proved you to be incorrect...
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  4. #184
    Stigmatized! End R Word! Kali's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Last Seen
    08-19-12 @ 12:29 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    13,334
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Late Clash on Abortion Shows Conservativesí Sway

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    Lol kali talk about a loaded question...he has a really good point. Apdst doesn't want to have to pay out of his pocket for the mistakes of others, and that's not an unreasonable position. I don't know to what degree this is true, but some people think that if you end all these benefits people will think twice before making irresponsible decisions.
    Well we can look at our penal system as proof that tough love does not work in reguards to a lot of things so that is crap. So back to the issue: what is gonna happen to all these babies and kids? We/tax payers will be the ones supporting them that is what. For 18 years. READ: 18 YEARS. As I said-would rather my tax dollars go towards not bringing unwanted kids into this world over having to pay for them for 18 years. 18 YEARS!
    ~Following My Own Flow~

  5. #185
    Stigmatized! End R Word! Kali's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Last Seen
    08-19-12 @ 12:29 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    13,334
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Late Clash on Abortion Shows Conservativesí Sway

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Which babies are starving to death? I understand babies are being removed from the mother's womb but have they now designed a new method of getting rid of them?
    Are you being serious? If we cut WIC and other social programs to help feed these babies do you not think they will STARVE? Instead of asking me questions like this how about ingesting in what I am trying to put down before asking some random question.
    ~Following My Own Flow~

  6. #186
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,461

    Re: Late Clash on Abortion Shows Conservativesí Sway

    Quote Originally Posted by Kali View Post
    Well we can look at our penal system as proof that tough love does not work in reguards to a lot of things so that is crap. So back to the issue: what is gonna happen to all these babies and kids? We/tax payers will be the ones supporting them that is what. For 18 years. READ: 18 YEARS. As I said-would rather my tax dollars go towards not bringing unwanted kids into this world over having to pay for them for 18 years. 18 YEARS!
    It's because our penal system isn't tough enough. Our justice system allows too many career criminals live and not enough of them are put to death.

  7. #187
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Late Clash on Abortion Shows Conservativesí Sway

    Quote Originally Posted by Kali View Post
    Are you being serious? If we cut WIC and other social programs to help feed these babies do you not think they will STARVE? Instead of asking me questions like this how about ingesting in what I am trying to put down before asking some random question.
    So it's your contentiopn if babies aren't aborted they will starve?

    You don't know that there are people waiting to adopt babies? You don't believe people would feed starving babies, or children.

    Don't judge other people by your own behavior, Kali. They are much kinder than yourself and the company you must keep.

  8. #188
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,711

    Re: Late Clash on Abortion Shows Conservativesí Sway

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    It's not one source so I am not terribly interested in tracking down all of them for you. Suffice to say tens of millions of women get each of these tests done every year and Planned Parenthood only provides each to about 1 million people a year. Purchases of contraceptives are also in the tens of millions. As far as abortion here is a figure for you:

    Planned Parenthood Reports Abortion Rate Up By More Than 8,000 in One Year | CNSnews.com

    Because poor women don't have some sort of government program to cover their expenses at another facility. The fact there are far more poor people who seem to get these elsewhere without difficulty suggests it is yet another non-issue.
    And none of this has anything to do with what was being discussed. Your attempt at diverting has been stopped.

    You should have.
    You wanted me to. Of course, since that's not my position, I didn't. I know you like to argue positions that other do not acutally have, but try to stick to the position being presented.

    Because nothing you have said is in any way an appeal to emotion.
    Correct. YOU made the appeal to emotion.

    You are just saying that we might have rising cases of child abuse, rampant financial distress, and a massive health crisis were we to stop people from getting abortion.
    Really? Post-quote where I said those things.

    Actually, what I said is just how I see it. I don't see why I should be PC about an ongoing massacre of innocent children.
    Right... as I said, nothing more than an appeal to emotion. Point is irrelevant.

    Honestly, I do consider it rationally, but I don't ****ing give a damn about your nonsensical notion that people need to lay out a plan to fix our child-care system in order to say we need to stop people from killing babies.
    If you considered it rationally, you might consider the repurcussions of the decision to end abortion. And yes, since you want it ended, it is up to you to define how it is then dealt with. I have no vested interest in doing so... I'm happy the way things are. But tell us DoL... what do YOU think would happen if abortion was suddenly ended?

    Like I said, you believe it is legal, while I believe it is very much not legal. The difference is you are a statist who thinks whatever the State says is all that matters, while I think rights are something that exist independent of the State and not subject to removal by any authority. In this case my position is reinforced by the fact we have a Constitution that is the highest authority in the country with no body or law superseding it not even the Supreme Court.
    Your "belief" is trumped by the reality of legality. Nothing you can do to alter that, currently. Oh, and if you are talking about "natural rights", "natural irghts" don't exist.

    Sorry, but that is not how it works. You do not condition a cease fire in a war by saying there needs to be a peace treaty already drawn up to deal with everyone's grievances. An end to killing happens first, then you try to figure out how to work out what happens next. It is the same here. Ending this allowance of abortion-on-demand must come before you start talking about how to deal with the child-care system.
    Your analogy is faulty since there is death going on with both sides of a war. And I get to demand anything I want. You can refuse, but this is a negotiation. If you want abortion on demand ended, and you want my support, you tell me what your plan is to manage the added children into the child care system. That is the sticking point to many of us who could be on the fence of this issue. See, I have no problem, morally, with abortion. I do have a problem, morally, with a childcare and educational system, already taxed, receiving an influx of new numbers, many of which will be unwanted. You have a plan, and I will consider it. I'm not changing my mind... nor are most people without a reason and ideas to deal with the new situation. This is the problem with most pro-lifers. You care about the unborn, but stop caring once they are born. You want this? Your responsibility to define it.

    It is not a diversion or dishonest. The implication is that defunding Planned Parenthood will suddenly create a huge problem in acquiring these non-abortion services and I was pointing out that it would do nothing of the sort. People will still be able to get their condoms and their pills. No one is going to suddenly not be able to get a cancer screening. All it would seriously reduce is the availability of abortion. As for dishonesty, Chappy was in fact being dishonest as are you by providing that figure. That figure represents the number of clients meaning the number of people who received abortions as opposed to the number that received cancer screenings or condoms. Using those figures to argue against defunding is dishonest. It doesn't fairly reflect that 15% of its revenue comes from abortion or that a third of its facilities provide abortions with more than a fifth providing surgical abortions.
    No, your dishonesty is fairly apparent. You fail to understand that much of that funding assists lower income folks, who, without that funding, might be unable to obtain ANY services. That is why your diversion was irrelevant... and nothing but a diversion.

    Further, the numbers Chappy and I provided are accurate. Plenty of sources show that. So, no. The dishonesty is all yours.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  9. #189
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Late Clash on Abortion Shows Conservativesí Sway

    Quote Originally Posted by Kali View Post
    O.K. So you do agree with a womans right to choose. Good for you. My question for you now is why do you want babies to starve to death?
    Speaking of appealing to emotion...
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  10. #190
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: Late Clash on Abortion Shows Conservativesí Sway

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    And none of this has anything to do with what was being discussed. Your attempt at diverting has been stopped.
    It has everything to do with it. People are arguing against defunding by pointing out other services Planned Parenthood offers and I am pointing out that their services in this regard are very, very small in comparison to their role in abortion services.

    You wanted me to. Of course, since that's not my position, I didn't. I know you like to argue positions that other do not acutally have, but try to stick to the position being presented.
    I was just saying you should have because then you would be correct. Apparently you don't have an interest in being correct.

    Really? Post-quote where I said those things.
    Here you go:

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    More unwanted children means more possible abuse... or more need for social services... or more individuals with monetary issues... or more issues with health care, etc..
    You apparently think that if you did not use the exact same words that you can get out of what you actually have said. Not gonna work.

    Right... as I said, nothing more than an appeal to emotion. Point is irrelevant.
    It is not an appeal to emotion anymore than it is to call a mass-murder of people due to their race genocide.

    If you considered it rationally, you might consider the repurcussions of the decision to end abortion. And yes, since you want it ended, it is up to you to define how it is then dealt with. I have no vested interest in doing so... I'm happy the way things are. But tell us DoL... what do YOU think would happen if abortion was suddenly ended?
    I have considered the "repercussions" but you see the difference is that, unlike you, I think protecting millions of innocent lives is worth dealing with any repercussions. Nowhere did I say I do not have an idea of how to deal with problems, but my point is these problems already exist and so the only real change would be an increase in cases. What you really want me to do is come up with a solution to all the existing problems before I can suggest stopping abortions. If you have a situation where hundreds of thousands of babies are being killed a year, you don't ask how to deal with the consequences of stopping before you decide it needs to be stopped. Basic human compassion would demand that you stop it as soon as possible even if you do not have a way to deal with resulting problems that are, all in all, less severe than hundreds of thousands of babies being killed a year.

    Your "belief" is trumped by the reality of legality. Nothing you can do to alter that, currently. Oh, and if you are talking about "natural rights", "natural irghts" don't exist.
    Like I said, my position here is backed by the Constitution. The Supreme Court is not the law. The Constitution is the law.

    Your analogy is faulty since there is death going on with both sides of a war. And I get to demand anything I want. You can refuse, but this is a negotiation. If you want abortion on demand ended, and you want my support, you tell me what your plan is to manage the added children into the child care system. That is the sticking point to many of us who could be on the fence of this issue. See, I have no problem, morally, with abortion. I do have a problem, morally, with a childcare and educational system, already taxed, receiving an influx of new numbers, many of which will be unwanted. You have a plan, and I will consider it. I'm not changing my mind... nor are most people without a reason and ideas to deal with the new situation. This is the problem with most pro-lifers. You care about the unborn, but stop caring once they are born. You want this? Your responsibility to define it.
    Nowhere have I said in any way that I do not have a plan. I just think the demand for a plan for after it is stopped is absurd. Like I said, you don't wait to come up with a plan for the aftermath when you are dealing with the massacre of hundreds of thousands of innocent children. Not everyone is going to have a plan and your claim that without such a plan the demand is illegitimate is just complete nonsense.

    No, your dishonesty is fairly apparent. You fail to understand that much of that funding assists lower income folks, who, without that funding, might be unable to obtain ANY services. That is why your diversion was irrelevant... and nothing but a diversion.
    I understand that people with lower income are not unable to obtain these services because even among the poor Planned Parenthood does not make major contributions. For instance, 30% of the patients are on Medicaid so the only difficulty they would run into is finding another medical facility in the area. Of clinics funded by Title X Planned Parenthood makes for a whopping 14%. In other words 86% of clinics that provide these services to the poor, without including clinics that do not receive Title X money but accept Medicaid enrollees, would still be operating even if Planned Parenthood were to shut down.

    Here is some of that information for you:

    Abortion Foes Target Family Planning Program : NPR

    Further, the numbers Chappy and I provided are accurate. Plenty of sources show that. So, no. The dishonesty is all yours.
    You can say something that has truth to it and still be dishonest. In this case that is exactly what you and Chappy are doing. In fact, I just saw something indicating how dishonest these figures are:

    In 2009, we provided nearly 11.4 million medical services for
    three million people
    Abortion Services ó 3 percent of services in 2009
    Abortion Procedures 332,278
    Source: Planned Parenthood

    In other words it was actually about 11% of their clients that received abortions in 2009. Huh, that makes it seem like abortion is a lot more significant for Planned Parenthood than some are trying to lead people to believe. When you look at the information it is pretty interesting since cancer screenings are given to about 30% of clients, which corresponds to the number on Medicaid. So quite probably most, if not all, people given those screenings will be able to get the same services at another clinic.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

Page 19 of 49 FirstFirst ... 9171819202129 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •