mpg
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2005
- Messages
- 7,795
- Reaction score
- 1,784
- Location
- Milford, CT
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
This thread should've started in the basement.
Are you ok with our tax dollars going towards welfare, WIC and other social programs that support these non-aborted "babies" until they are 18?
I can't speak for the OP, but I would think that what is being compared to terrorism is the way anti-abortion legislators threatened a government shutdown unless their demands were met, not their views.So, anyone that opposes tax money going to pay for abortions is equal to an abortion clinic bomber?
Do you realize how stupid you sound?
But hey, if you support state funded eugenics, more power to yuz.
I can't speak for the OP, but I would think that what is being compared to terrorism is the way anti-abortion legislators threatened a government shutdown unless their demands were met, not their views.
Not saying that's equivalent to bombing a clinic, just pointing out the distinction.
I can't speak for the OP, but I would think that what is being compared to terrorism is the way anti-abortion legislators threatened a government shutdown unless their demands were met, not their views.
Not saying that's equivalent to bombing a clinic, just pointing out the distinction.
So what will happen to these babies that you think women should have?
The Pro-abortion(those who advocate that abortion be legal) crowd claims that no federal tax money is used for abortion.So why are pro-abortion democrats making a big stink out of this?
You could adopt a few of them, for starters.
You could adopt a few of them, for starters.
Yes.
We are not discussing crows. You are parsing definitions. CaptainCourtesy enjoys exposing folks who do that. Murder is a legal term in this case. It does not apply to abortion, and using it appeals to emotion. Killing is accurate.
No.
You were parsing definitions, and now you are complaining when someone else parsed your definition.
That's all.
Yeah, like this one time my boss told me I HAD TO STAY LATE. He basically dictated what I had to do. That's totally like being hitler. :roll:
Point out where I said that abortion is not about convienience and then get back to me.
Wrong. That is the irresponsible course. Setting something in motion without a plan of how to deal with it is like building a house without a foundation. This is classic from some pro-lifers. You want to end abortion, but you have no plan... nor desire to deal with what that means. With no plan, there is no reason to consider ending abortion from how I see it.
Irrelevant. Abortion is legal, currently. Therefore, it is not murder as defined, legally.
1. If the attempt is to outright outlaw abortion, then attempt to outlaw abortion. Stop with the pathetic attempts at working around the legal system.
Did the social conservatives hijack the Tea Party's budget battle?
Are you saying that you actually agree abortion is about convenience?
Sure, no reason to try and put an end to the senseless killing of millions of babies. :roll: That is your problem. You want the side you disagree with to basically figure out a solution to everything wrong with our society before putting an end to the practice of abortion-on-demand.
Like I said, the Supreme Court is simply the end of the appeal process, it does not mean its rulings represent the law. The problem is no one but the Supreme Court can override it. That the Supreme Court has overridden past rulings is an acknowledgment that its rulings are not always consistent with constitutional law, meaning they do not represent a correct interpretation of the law. You can say all you like that abortion is "legal" but that does not mean it is actually true. My position is that the Supreme Court's ruling was in violation of the law and that an honest interpretation of the law would cause one to conclude abortion is very much in violation of the basic natural rights of the unborn, namely the right to life.
Disagree. They're funding should not be pulled. They should be restricted from using that funding for abortions... this I would support.
PP takes private donations, I think.How will poor women that need/want/chose abortions get them safely if there is no funding for them?
How will poor women that need/want/chose abortions get them safely if there is no funding for them?
So pro-life=terrorist? Am I a terrorist because I believe in protecting unborn life and preventing innocent death?
Digs... you are not a terrorist. It was an idiotic appeal to emotion logical fallacy presented by the OP.
Then her correct choice was to not have sex. Having sex carries with it the acceptance of the risk of getting pregnant.
Since the baby is a human being, it cannot be morally killed just because it's mother is a fool.
It's really as simple as that. Mayor Snorkum is perfectly pro-choice. The choice is between using the words "yes" or "no" when the sperm donor approaches, requesting to make a deposit. Neither choice justifies killing a human being afterwards.
There will be less sex in the 'hood, once word gets around that those baby things are a real pain in the ass and they even cost money to care for.
Believe it or not, and your Very Liberal "lean" indicates you lack knowledge of basic market economics, making something cost more leads to the consumption of less of it.
You mean as the alternative to killing three million babies a year?
Yes, that's a preferable alternative. Maybe if people like Madonna and Angelina Jolie would stop adopting babies in Africa and start "giving back" to the communites that were stupid enough to buy her records, things could see a little improvement in the US?
Morality is a fine reason. You just completed a post using nothing but moralistic arguments.
The BIG PICTURE is that the United States is broke, the Constitution does not permit funding for medical procedures or any other welfare-type transference, and that de-funding Planned Parenthood does not in any way make the murder of unborn babies illegal. All it means is that the moral taxpayer will not be required to see his hard earned tax dollars being spent on a particularly offensive purpose.
Is there any particular reason you don't believe the prochoicers in America couldn't contribute their own money to the goal of killing unborn babies as a charity? That would be tax deductible, and completely exempt from any effort by the Pro-Life people to curtail.
Women do not have a right to murder children, be they born and breathing, or not.