View Poll Results: Should mothers be allowed to abort because of gender, race, or sexual preference?

Voters
21. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, abortion is a choice and the fetus isn't a person

    10 47.62%
  • No, discrimination is wrong even if the baby isn't born yet

    10 47.62%
  • Yes, under these circumstances:

    1 4.76%
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 72

Thread: PRENDA - Prenatal Non-Descrimination Act

  1. #51
    Educator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    11-10-12 @ 04:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    801

    Re: PRENDA - Prenatal Non-Descrimination Act

    Quote Originally Posted by Wake View Post
    If a nation is staunchly pro-choice, but doesn't allow sex-selective abortions, then it's likely some people aren't progressive enough to "progress."
    Wouldn't staunchly pro-choice mean that at least half the country supports abortion?
    Get informed: UNICEF foreign adoption policy is killing orphans and the US gives $132 million to UNICEF every year. Stop the madness.
    For the best news and commentary on the 2012 election from the GOP perspective, visit www.whitehouse12.com.

  2. #52
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: PRENDA - Prenatal Non-Descrimination Act

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Disagree. It might be somewhat difficult to enforce, but then so are a lot of laws... we need to be aware that gender-bias abortions tend to have severe social consequences and take such steps as we reasonably can to suppress the practice. It is a terrible reason to abort, arguably even worse than "I forgot to take my pill".
    Why is accidental pregnancy a bad reason to have an abortion? That seems like it would be a pre-requisite, no?

    The penalty is for doctors. So it would only come into play if a woman came in and said that she was planning on aborting because of the fetus's gender. If anybody does that now, which I doubt, they just would remember not to mention it to their doctor. And, heck, even if they did mention it, the doctor would just say no and they would just go to a different doctor...

    It's not a real attempt to address the issue. It's just empty posturing. The GOP knows gender selection abortion is unpopular, so they want to be able to make speeches about how they don't like it. That's all it is.
    Last edited by teamosil; 06-02-12 at 01:46 PM.
    Total tax rates- People living in poverty: 16.2%. The median American: 27%. Working people who make over $140k/year: 31%. The top 1%: 30%. Super rich investors: around 15%. Help the democrats retake the house.

  3. #53
    Educator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    11-10-12 @ 04:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    801

    Re: PRENDA - Prenatal Non-Descrimination Act

    Quote Originally Posted by friday View Post
    In China, they know all about aborting girls in order to try again for a boy. Recent undercover videos are showing that Planned Parenthood is advising the same thing in the US for mothers who wanted one gender and are getting another. Kill it and try again. Should aborting girls (or boys) in order to try again for a different gender be legal? Or is that a form of sex discrimination? Same with race. What if they discover a gay gene? Should parents be allowed to abort a gay child and try again for a straight one?
    Here's another question. Does endorsement of sex-selective abortions diminish the value of women in our society? Also, the President voted to deny medical care to babies who survive abortions based on the mother's intent. What if the mother intended to abort if it is a girl and the doctor screws up and says its a boy? Should the mother now have options when the baby is born as a girl?
    Get informed: UNICEF foreign adoption policy is killing orphans and the US gives $132 million to UNICEF every year. Stop the madness.
    For the best news and commentary on the 2012 election from the GOP perspective, visit www.whitehouse12.com.

  4. #54
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 12:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,536
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: PRENDA - Prenatal Non-Descrimination Act

    Quote Originally Posted by friday View Post
    Wouldn't staunchly pro-choice mean that at least half the country supports abortion?
    I wouldn't know. That was referring to nations excluding the U.S.A.

  5. #55
    Educator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    11-10-12 @ 04:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    801

    Re: PRENDA - Prenatal Non-Descrimination Act

    Quote Originally Posted by Wake View Post
    I wouldn't know. That was referring to nations excluding the U.S.A.
    Many nations other than the US allow abortion but prohibit sex-selection abortion.
    Get informed: UNICEF foreign adoption policy is killing orphans and the US gives $132 million to UNICEF every year. Stop the madness.
    For the best news and commentary on the 2012 election from the GOP perspective, visit www.whitehouse12.com.

  6. #56
    Educator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    11-10-12 @ 04:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    801

    Re: PRENDA - Prenatal Non-Descrimination Act

    Quote Originally Posted by friday View Post
    Here's another question. Does endorsement of sex-selective abortions diminish the value of women in our society? Also, the President voted to deny medical care to babies who survive abortions based on the mother's intent. What if the mother intended to abort if it is a girl and the doctor screws up and says its a boy? Should the mother now have options when the baby is born as a girl?
    I guess what they could do is treat every birth where the mother wants a boy like a partial birth abortion. When the bottom half comes out, if there's a penis they can birth the baby the rest of the way. If not, suck out the brains and try again.
    Get informed: UNICEF foreign adoption policy is killing orphans and the US gives $132 million to UNICEF every year. Stop the madness.
    For the best news and commentary on the 2012 election from the GOP perspective, visit www.whitehouse12.com.

  7. #57
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: PRENDA - Prenatal Non-Descrimination Act

    Quote Originally Posted by friday View Post
    Recent undercover videos
    I just can't even believe there are actually still people out there that are still falling for that kind of video lol. Do you not follow the news at all or something? That's just absurd... After soooooo many of them have been debunked over and over and over, you're still buying into them? Why?

    In case you honestly were not understanding what they are doing, I'll give you a brief explanation I guess. They send in tons and tons of people to whatever organization they are trying to take down. They wear costumes and lie about their situation and so on, and collect as much video as they possibly can. Then they go home and edit in new parts for their side of the conversation and splice together different responses from the other person to make it seem like something other than what is happening happened. For example, maybe I'd film myself asking you "do you like the tea party?" and you'd gush about how it is the best thing since sliced bread, then I'd go home and edit in audio of myself asking you "do you like that the tea party lynches people?" instead. And then the next day brietbart or whatever fake news site would post it. And then a week later it would be debunked, but brietbart.com certainly isn't reporting that part, so some folks never know better I guess.

    For example, take the hoax that started it all- the ACORN videos. I bet you didn't even know that they were faked... lol. That says something really striking about where you are getting your news because it was widely reported. He even lost lawsuits over it. Remember how in his video it looked like he was wearing a pimp costume and telling the ACORN people that he needed a place to keep one of his hookers and wanted their help lying on the tax forms? First off, the film of him wearing that costume was taken in an empty room some other day and edited in. Secondly, what he actually said to the ACORN people was that he was a local politician who had a constituent who came to him who was a 16 year old girl that had run away from a severely abusive home and and been kidnapped by a pimp who was beating her. So, he wanted to help her get out of that situation. Her biggest concern was that she had nowhere to live except the pimp's house, and there was a program that provided transitional housing in a shelter that she could get away from the abuse where they would have security that would keep the pimp out. She was wearing makeup to make it look like she had severe bruising on her face and she cried as she told her story. She said that she was scared to go into the transitional housing because the form asked if she had had a job and she was afraid that if she wrote down "prostitution", she would be arrested. So, the ACORN people told her it was ok if she just told the shelter that she preferred not to answer that question. That's it. That's all they did. But then he went home and edited it up to make it sound like something totally different happened. And guess what, he had to visit a dozen or so ACORN offices before he even got footage that he could pretend depicted them saying that.

    In the end he destroyed the largest charitable organization in the country with his lies. You may think of ACORN as a political organization. It wasn't. It ran more battered women's shelters, soup kitchens, job training programs, etc, than any other organization in the US. You may think ACORN was primarily funded by the government. In actuality, 95% of its funding came from private donations. You may think it was mostly about election fraud. In actuality all that business is about is that they had a program where they would pay unemployed people a couple bucks for every person they got registered to vote and a few of the people they hired conned them by filling out fake registration cards with names like "Bart Simpson" to get their $2 or whatever without having to actually go walk around talking to people. All the registration cards were rejected by the board of elections and ACORN immediately fired the people involved when they learned about it.

    You need to become harder to fool. People are tricking you into supporting evil. That ought to be a lot harder thing for them to accomplish than this.
    Total tax rates- People living in poverty: 16.2%. The median American: 27%. Working people who make over $140k/year: 31%. The top 1%: 30%. Super rich investors: around 15%. Help the democrats retake the house.

  8. #58
    Educator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    11-10-12 @ 04:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    801

    Re: PRENDA - Prenatal Non-Descrimination Act

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    I just can't even believe there are actually still people out there that are still falling for that kind of video lol. Do you not follow the news at all or something? That's just absurd... After soooooo many of them have been debunked over and over and over, you're still buying into them? Why?

    In case you honestly were not understanding what they are doing, I'll give you a brief explanation I guess. They send in tons and tons of people to whatever organization they are trying to take down. They wear costumes and lie about their situation and so on, and collect as much video as they possibly can. Then they go home and edit in new parts for their side of the conversation and splice together different responses from the other person to make it seem like something other than what is happening happened. For example, maybe I'd film myself asking you "do you like the tea party?" and you'd gush about how it is the best thing since sliced bread, then I'd go home and edit in audio of myself asking you "do you like that the tea party lynches people?" instead. And then the next day brietbart or whatever fake news site would post it. And then a week later it would be debunked, but brietbart.com certainly isn't reporting that part, so some folks never know better I guess.

    For example, take the hoax that started it all- the ACORN videos. I bet you didn't even know that they were faked... lol. That says something really striking about where you are getting your news because it was widely reported. He even lost lawsuits over it. Remember how in his video it looked like he was wearing a pimp costume and telling the ACORN people that he needed a place to keep one of his hookers and wanted their help lying on the tax forms? First off, the film of him wearing that costume was taken in an empty room some other day and edited in. Secondly, what he actually said to the ACORN people was that he was a local politician who had a constituent who came to him who was a 16 year old girl that had run away from a severely abusive home and and been kidnapped by a pimp who was beating her. So, he wanted to help her get out of that situation. Her biggest concern was that she had nowhere to live except the pimp's house, and there was a program that provided transitional housing in a shelter that she could get away from the abuse where they would have security that would keep the pimp out. She was wearing makeup to make it look like she had severe bruising on her face and she cried as she told her story. She said that she was scared to go into the transitional housing because the form asked if she had had a job and she was afraid that if she wrote down "prostitution", she would be arrested. So, the ACORN people told her it was ok if she just told the shelter that she preferred not to answer that question. That's it. That's all they did. But then he went home and edited it up to make it sound like something totally different happened. And guess what, he had to visit a dozen or so ACORN offices before he even got footage that he could pretend depicted them saying that.

    In the end he destroyed the largest charitable organization in the country with his lies. You may think of ACORN as a political organization. It wasn't. It ran more battered women's shelters, soup kitchens, job training programs, etc, than any other organization in the US. You may think ACORN was primarily funded by the government. In actuality, 95% of its funding came from private donations. You may think it was mostly about election fraud. In actuality all that business is about is that they had a program where they would pay unemployed people a couple bucks for every person they got registered to vote and a few of the people they hired conned them by filling out fake registration cards with names like "Bart Simpson" to get their $2 or whatever without having to actually go walk around talking to people. All the registration cards were rejected by the board of elections and ACORN immediately fired the people involved when they learned about it.

    You need to become harder to fool. People are tricking you into supporting evil. That ought to be a lot harder thing for them to accomplish than this.
    What sort of work have you actually done with ACORN? Have you had any sort of professional interaction with them or done any sort of work related to them? I actually have, that's why I'm asking. One of the ways this "non-profit" made money was by selling a business services scam to wealthy individuals under another name. Basically what they would do is set up a Nevada corporation with a (possibly fake) person as the registered agent to create anonymity. Then they supposedly would also run the wealthy individual's health insurance and health costs through that company as a tax loophole (except they sucked at doing it, at least based on the instance I had to clean up). I ran a search on the registered agent's name and calculated it out based on what they were charging in registered agent fees, and your "non-profit" saintly organization ACORN was making more than $10 million a year just on scamming wealthy people into setting up these Nevada corporations.
    Get informed: UNICEF foreign adoption policy is killing orphans and the US gives $132 million to UNICEF every year. Stop the madness.
    For the best news and commentary on the 2012 election from the GOP perspective, visit www.whitehouse12.com.

  9. #59
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: PRENDA - Prenatal Non-Descrimination Act

    Quote Originally Posted by friday View Post
    What sort of work have you actually done with ACORN? Have you had any sort of professional interaction with them or done any sort of work related to them? I actually have, that's why I'm asking. One of the ways this "non-profit" made money was by selling a business services scam to wealthy individuals under another name. Basically what they would do is set up a Nevada corporation with a (possibly fake) person as the registered agent to create anonymity. Then they supposedly would also run the wealthy individual's health insurance and health costs through that company as a tax loophole (except they sucked at doing it, at least based on the instance I had to clean up). I ran a search on the registered agent's name and calculated it out based on what they were charging in registered agent fees, and your "non-profit" saintly organization ACORN was making more than $10 million a year just on scamming wealthy people into setting up these Nevada corporations.
    Well I've never heard of anything like that with them, so you'll need to give me a link.

    But, what does it even mean for a non-profit to "make money"? You just mean covering the costs of providing services, right? There aren't any shareholders or anything, so nobody can take profits...
    Total tax rates- People living in poverty: 16.2%. The median American: 27%. Working people who make over $140k/year: 31%. The top 1%: 30%. Super rich investors: around 15%. Help the democrats retake the house.

  10. #60
    Educator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    11-10-12 @ 04:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    801

    Re: PRENDA - Prenatal Non-Descrimination Act

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Well I've never heard of anything like that with them, so you'll need to give me a link.

    But, what does it even mean for a non-profit to "make money"? You just mean covering the costs of providing services, right? There aren't any shareholders or anything, so nobody can take profits...
    Even non-profit CEOs get compensated. And there is no link, this wasn't a news story. It was an actual situation that I encountered in my profession.
    Get informed: UNICEF foreign adoption policy is killing orphans and the US gives $132 million to UNICEF every year. Stop the madness.
    For the best news and commentary on the 2012 election from the GOP perspective, visit www.whitehouse12.com.

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 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
  •