• 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!

Late Clash on Abortion Shows Conservatives’ Sway

This thread should've started in the basement.
 
 
Kali said:
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?
Click to expand...

That is the best post ever on DP.
 
apdst said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Krhazy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
 
Krhazy said:
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.
Click to expand...

That can also be said for the pro-abortion folks.
 
jamesrage said:
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?
Click to expand...

Abortion is not being advocated to be legal, it is legal. And the Democrats are making a big stink out of this because no Federal funds are going toward abortion - something the right seems to not understand.
 
apdst said:
You could adopt a few of them, for starters.
Click to expand...


Let's hope so, because the Republicans/conservatives against abortion don't want to spend money on them once they are born!
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
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.
Click to expand...

No.

You were parsing definitions, and now you are complaining when someone else parsed your definition.

That's all.
 
Instead of arguing about whether abortion is murder maybe we could address the observation in the OP article that the delay of a budget deal to the eleventh hour demonstrates the continuing power social conservatives wield within the Republican party despite the ascendancy of the Tea Party's adamant focus on fiscal matters.


Did the social conservatives hijack the Tea Party's budget battle?
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
No.

You were parsing definitions, and now you are complaining when someone else parsed your definition.

That's all.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Deuce said:
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:
Click to expand...

Yeah, but you work for him.

Isn't the government supposed to work for us?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Point out where I said that abortion is not about convienience and then get back to me.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that you actually agree abortion is about convenience?

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.
Click to expand...

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.

Irrelevant. Abortion is legal, currently. Therefore, it is not murder as defined, legally.
Click to expand...

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.

TheBook said:
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.
Click to expand...

Except anything that moves us one step closer to barring the practice is a step forward. Just like any legal concession on civil rights for non-whites and women would be a step forward. I would certainly want it to end all at once, but if it is not possible to pull off then slowly restricting it until it becomes virtually inaccessible is perfectly acceptable. Someone wants contraception they can get it at a place that doesn't kill babies so someone can save a few nickels.
 
First we are racist for not agreeing with a liberal president (didn't you notice...he's negro!). Then we were "bubba's" because we "didn't get" the brilliance of Obama's health care reform. Now we are terrorists for not wanting to kill babies. What's next?
 
Chappy said:
Did the social conservatives hijack the Tea Party's budget battle?
Click to expand...

Yeppers.

The Tea folks want Gov off our backs, out of our pocketbooks, and right into to our bedrooms...
 
Demon of Light said:
Are you saying that you actually agree abortion is about convenience?
Click to expand...

No. I'm saying that it is sometimes about convienience.

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.
Click to expand...

You want the change, you figure out the solution. YOU'RE the one that is invested in the change. Stands to reason that you would want to figure out how to manage that change. Not my job to do your work for you.


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.
Click to expand...

Currently, abortion is legal. There is nothing that you said above that alters that fact. Disagree all you like. Doesn't change things, currently.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Disagree. They're funding should not be pulled. They should be restricted from using that funding for abortions... this I would support.
Click to expand...

How will poor women that need/want/chose abortions get them safely if there is no funding for them?
 
Kali said:
How will poor women that need/want/chose abortions get them safely if there is no funding for them?
Click to expand...
PP takes private donations, I think.
 
So pro-life=terrorist? Am I a terrorist because I believe in protecting unborn life and preventing innocent death?
 
Kali said:
How will poor women that need/want/chose abortions get them safely if there is no funding for them?
Click to expand...

I understand that concern, but since abortion is usually an elective proceedure, I do not want federal funds going towards it. In these cases, I support private charities giving assistance... and strongly support federal funding of birth control.
 
digsbe said:
So pro-life=terrorist? Am I a terrorist because I believe in protecting unborn life and preventing innocent death?
Click to expand...

Digs... you are not a terrorist. It was an idiotic appeal to emotion logical fallacy presented by the OP.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Digs... you are not a terrorist. It was an idiotic appeal to emotion logical fallacy presented by the OP.
Click to expand...

I know. Honestly I am finding a new disturbing trend. The right will label Obama as the Kenyan terrorist or liberals as economic terrorists. The left will label the Tea Party as a domestic terrorist group and now pro-lifers are being called terrorists. I believe Godwin's law may have met its match.
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
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.
Click to expand...

I stopped reading when I read the word "hood".. When you can debate without sterotyping? Get back to me and I may deem you worthy of reading. Til then? Not interested in a word you have to say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom