• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

In 2002 Obama supported infanticide

Felicity said:
No one said anything at all about "borrowing" anything except you.:doh
Click to expand...

Well, if you don't want to raise taxes, but costs go up, the money has to come from somewhere.
 
Iriemon said:
We all want to reallocate money to programs we support. Good luck convincing the warmongers to cut military spending.
Click to expand...

Convince the Islamists & terrorists to stop threatening the peace and freedoms of free and peaceful peoples around the world and we might be able to convince those darned warmongers to cut military spending.

Iriemon said:
You are promoting a major new cost program -- forcing people to bear unwanted babies, yet offer no support to pay for it other than "thinking outside the box."
Click to expand...

"You want to raise budget revenues and spark economic growth? Cut the cap-gains tax rate. That’s what history shows."

Larry Kudlow on Barack Obama and Tax Policy on NRO Financial

Iriemon said:
Here's thinking outside the box for you -- don't force people to have babies they don't want and then there is no issue about raising taxes to pay for it.
Click to expand...

That's waaaay too far outside the box.

You seem to be attracted to some messed up methods of providing benevolence for those who want to kill Americans. In the theater of abortion rooms or in the theater of armed combat on actual battlefields.

We must be humane with those enemies of the USA trying to kill our troops and we must fund and support those who would kill babies.
 
Iriemon said:
No, the point is if you are to force women to have unwanted babies, then are you willing to support programs to pay for it?

Many women do not have resources to pay for bringing up a child. Obama is absolutely right that if you want to reduce abortions, then provide the means for supporting the child you want brought into existance.
Click to expand...
Don't have sex unless you want to "provide the means for supporting the child" that may result from your behavior choice.

...same sort of reasoning, only in my suggestion, there is this magical thing that is both a blessing and a burden...it's called "personal responsibility!"
 
Felicity said:
Don't have sex unless your willing to deal with the consequences without killing. :shrug:Don't get on my case for offering the same sort of thinking you offer above...:cool:
Click to expand...

How many late term abortions are being used as contraception?
 
Felicity said:
Don't have sex unless your willing to deal with the consequences without killing. :shrug:Don't get on my case for offering the same sort of thinking you offer above...:cool:
Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing out core conservative position:

Don't have sex.

And if you do, don't expect us to provide support for care for the unwanted baby we are going to make you have.

While a "no sex" position is fine, it doesn't provide for the support of the unwanted children produced by the failure of the policy.
 
Iriemon said:
Thanks for pointing out core conservative position:

Don't have sex.

And if you do, don't expect us to provide support for care for the unwanted baby we are going to make you have.

While a "no sex" position is fine, it doesn't provide for the support of the unwanted children produced by the failure of the policy.
Click to expand...

Why should I pay for YOUR choice to kill, but you take issue with paying for MY preference for life?
 
Felicity said:
Don't have sex unless you want to "provide the means for supporting the child" that may result from your behavior choice.

...same sort of reasoning, only in my suggestion, there is this magical thing that is both a blessing and a burden...it's called "personal responsibility!"
Click to expand...

Nice policy statement. But it doesn't provide an excuse for abandoning the unwanted children resulting from the failure of the policy. You are punishing the babies for the failure of the mother to conform with your policy.
 
Felicity said:
Why should I pay for YOUR choice to kill, but you take issue with paying for MY preference for life?
Click to expand...

Uh, because you are the one who wants to force mothers to bear the unwanted child.

You made it crystal clear you aren't willing to support raising taxes to provide food, shelter, health care and education to unwanted babies, much less the medical costs of life support for premies or children with Downs syndrome like the example the pro-life nurse gave.

If you don't want to pay taxes, the cost of an abortion is miniscule compared to the cost of supporting a child, and is the best way to keep your taxes low on this front.
 
Iriemon said:
Nice policy statement. But it doesn't provide an excuse for abandoning the unwanted children resulting from the failure of the policy. You are punishing the babies for the failure of the mother to conform with your policy.
Click to expand...

And I said that policy must change to care for those kids.

Furthermore--without the nannystate, don't you think people's behavior choices would conform somewhat with the prospect of carrying a child rather than always having the option to kill the mistake? There might be an initial many "unwanted" baby bump, but behavior would change. Look to drinking and driving numbers to see how policy affects behavior.
 
Iriemon said:
You made it crystal clear you aren't willing to support raising taxes to provide food, shelter, health care and education to unwanted babies, much less the medical costs of life support for premies or children with Downs syndrome like the example the pro-life nurse gave.
Click to expand...
Keep beating that drum with that red herring. That is NOT what I said at all.:roll:

If you don't want to pay taxes, the cost of an abortion is miniscule compared to the cost of supporting a child, and is the best way to keep your taxes low on this front.
Click to expand...
Never said I wouldn't pay exorbitant taxes--merely said I want some say in how that tax money is allocated. I would LOVE to pay taxes that went to "provide food, shelter, health care and education to unwanted babies, much less the medical costs of life support for premies or children with Downs syndrome like the example the pro-life nurse gave" and DID NOT go to killing or supporting irresponsible behavior.
 
Last edited:
Felicity said:
And I said that policy must change to care for those kids.
Click to expand...

That makes you one of the very rare conservatives willing to pay higher taxes to provide care for unwanted children. Good for you, I applaud you willingness to support a comprehensive position.

Unfortunately, you are a tiny minority among conservatives.

Furthermore--without the nannystate, don't you think people's behavior choices would conform somewhat with the prospect of carrying a child rather than always having the option to kill the mistake? There might be an initial many "unwanted" baby bump, but behavior would change. Look to drinking and driving numbers to see how policy affects behavior.
Click to expand...

Somewhat. But the argument that people will stop having sex in any comprehensive way is not realistic.
 
Iriemon said:
Somewhat. But the argument that people will stop having sex in any comprehensive way is not realistic.
Click to expand...
And killing human beings for convenience and to save costs is rational? NOT!
 
Felicity said:
Keep beating that drum with that red herring. That is NOT what I said at all.:roll:
Click to expand...

I recognized your clarified position in my previous post.

Never said I wouldn't pay exorbitant taxes--merely said I want some say in how that tax money is allocated.
Click to expand...

We'd all like that, and have it to some extent thru our elected government.

For example, on this issue, McCain is against expanding health care, and though he doesn't say it directly, says he'll review programs that provide health, education and support to kids as part of his plan to slash spending.

Obama says he'll expand health care to those who can't afford it.

If you want to reduce abortions and provide support to the unwanted children who will be born, your clear choice is Obama.
 
Felicity said:
And killing human beings for convenience and to save costs is rational? NOT!
Click to expand...

So then I don't understand why you were objecting to paying higher taxes to pay for them! That is exactly the position you are criticizing here.
 
Felicity said:
All abortions kill.
Click to expand...

No Felicity, you implied that all abortions are being used as a contraception tool. Don't dodge the question. It is my understanding that those situations predominantly aren't "oops, I'm pregnant" situations.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
How many late term abortions are being used as contraception?
Click to expand...

They don't specify late term.

Abortion as Birth Control

Using abortion as birth control means that abortion is being used as a back-up method to ineffective or improperly used contraception, or no contraception is being used at all. Of women having abortions,

* 46% did not use contraception during the month they became pregnant
* 8% never used a method of birth control
* 47% have had at least one previous abortion

Although there are situations in which abortion is in response to health concerns of the mother or fetus, or in response to pregnancy arising from abuse, the majority of abortions are obtained for social and financial reasons. The primary reasons given for choosing abortion are given below.

* 75% say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities
* about 75% say they cannot afford a child
* 50% do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner

Using abortion as birth control is not healthy physically or psychologically, and is not a mature or responsible approach to sex. Women obtaining abortions are at higher risk for reproductive tract infections, including HIV and PID. If you are using abortion as birth control, you are encouraged to rethink your sexual decisions. You might wait on sex until you find a relationship where you could continue a pregnancy should one occur.

Source: AGI, Facts in Brief, Induced Abortion, Revised 1/2008.
Click to expand...

Contraceptive Info :: Abortion as Birth Control
 
bhkad said:
"You want to raise budget revenues and spark economic growth? Cut the cap-gains tax rate. That’s what history shows." Larry Kudlow on Barack Obama and Tax Policy on NRO Financial
Click to expand...

Off topic in this tread. But this is one of the wealthy tax-cutter more prominent lies.

After cap gains were cut in 2003, the revenues have never been as high as they were in 2000, before the cut, and economic growth has sucked.

The quoted statement is a flat out lie.

But the reason for the lie is not hard to understand. The wealthy with millions of investment and the trust fund babies live off their investments and pay investment taxes. Currently the max tax rate they pay is 15% + 2% for medicare. Those who work for a living pay up to 35% + the SS tax + medicare.

It's not to hard to see whay the richest and the media they control make outrageous lies like cutting the cap gains tax increases revenues and economic growth.
 
Iriemon said:
I recognized your clarified position in my previous post.
Click to expand...
We were posting simultaneously. Thanks.



We'd all like that, and have it to some extent thru our elected government.
Click to expand...
RADICAL change in the tax system is necessary.

For example, on this issue, McCain is against expanding health care, and though he doesn't say it directly, says he'll review programs that provide health, education and support to kids as part of his plan to slash spending.
Click to expand...
I don't support making change for change's sake--there needs to be a BETTER plan to garner my support.

Obama says he'll expand health care to those who can't afford it.
Click to expand...
Just expanding an already broken system merely wastes MORE money.

If you want to reduce abortions and provide support to the unwanted children who will be born, your clear choice is Obama.
Click to expand...
Baloney. Obama is the liberal status quo PLUS he wants LIVE INDIVIDUAL human beings subject to being defined as NON-PERSONS. I find that amazing coming from a black man. Didn't our country attempt to define some people of a certain race as some percentage of "person?" :doh How disgusting! It was disgusting then, it's disgusting now.
 
Iriemon said:
So then I don't understand why you were objecting to paying higher taxes to pay for them! That is exactly the position you are criticizing here.
Click to expand...
:doh :damn

How can you keep saying that with a straight face?
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
No Felicity, you implied that all abortions are being used as a contraception tool. Don't dodge the question. It is my understanding that those situations predominantly aren't "oops, I'm pregnant" situations.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting that? If that's how you interpreted something, you're misinterpreting.:confused:



EDIT: Oh...I get it...NO, I meant that the idea that there's always a way out should the "UNTHINKABLE" (it won't happen to me!) happen leads to people's behavior not being as cautious.
 
Last edited:
Felicity said:
RADICAL change in the tax system is necessary.

I don't support making change for change's sake--there needs to be a BETTER plan to garner my support.

Just expanding an already broken system merely wastes MORE money.
Click to expand...

A different and unrelated subject. We are not talking about your support for the tax system, but whether you (and conservative pro-lifers as a whole) are willing to support the unwanted babies and the higher taxes that will require.

Baloney. Obama is the liberal status quo PLUS he wants LIVE INDIVIDUAL human beings subject to being defined as NON-PERSONS. I find that amazing coming from a black man. Didn't our country attempt to define some people of a certain race as some percentage of "person?" :doh How disgusting! It was disgusting then, it's disgusting now.
Click to expand...

I don't think its baloney at all. How did I mistate the candidate's positions?
 
Felicity said:
Don't have sex unless your willing to deal with the consequences without killing. :shrug:Don't get on my case for offering the same sort of thinking you offer above...:cool:
Click to expand...

This is what you said.

Felicity said:
Where are you getting that? If that's how you interpreted something, you're misinterpreting.:confused:



EDIT: Oh...I get it...NO, I meant that the idea that there's always a way out should the "UNTHINKABLE" (it won't happen to me!) happen leads to people's behavior not being as cautious.
Click to expand...

I was resonding to your comment. So, a mother must be willing to die if she has sex. That is one consequence that could happen in some cases where carrying the baby to full term puts the mother at risk. Not to mention that a woman may not choose to have sex but still get pregnant.

Edit: I just saw your edited part. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom