• 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!

Democrats seek reversal of ban on federal abortion funding

Kal'Stang said:
GL on that insurrection. But thanks for proving to me that I am right in how i believed this type of thing would be received by anti-abortionists.
Click to expand...

It would be perceived as a tyrannical state not only failing to do its duty in protecting the human right to life but actively violating it as well as our right to property by seizing our property for no reason other than to pay contract killers, making us complicit in every one of those deaths if we sit by and do nothing.

That is far worse than anything the British government ever did to the colonies.

It would be grounds for at least the same response.

Hopefully such an abysmal tyranny never comes to pass, but if it does, it more than warrants a response.
 
JayDubya said:
It would be perceived as a tyrannical state not only failing to do its duty in protecting the human right to life but actively violating it as well as our right to property by seizing our property for no reason other than to pay contract killers, making us complicit in every one of those deaths if we sit by and do nothing.

That is far worse than anything the British government ever did to the colonies.

It would be grounds for at least the same response.
Click to expand...

So you appreciated the Hyde Amendment then?
 
Cardinal said:
So you appreciated the Hyde Amendment then?
Click to expand...

It is grossly inadequate and the slime still receive funding and anyone who knows anything understands that money is fungible...

... the "Hyde Amendment" isn't quite useless but what little utility it has in keeping my tax dollars out of the killing innocent human beings for money business is better than nothing.

Far better for such a vile organization to never receive a dime of taxpayer money for any reason.

Far better than that for everyone employed in such a venture be placed under arrest.
 
JayDubya said:
It would be perceived as a tyrannical state not only failing to do its duty in protecting the human right to life but actively violating it as well as our right to property by seizing our property for no reason other than to pay contract killers, making us complicit in every one of those deaths if we sit by and do nothing.

That is far worse than anything the British government ever did to the colonies.

It would be grounds for at least the same response.

Hopefully such an abysmal tyranny never comes to pass, but if it does, it more than warrants a response.
Click to expand...

Essentially it makes every taxpayer an accessory to the deaths of the unborn. I have no idea why liberals think it is right to force people to pay for a behavior that leads to the death of an innocent party.
 
JayDubya said:
It is grossly inadequate and the slime still receive funding and anyone who knows anything understands that money is fungible...

... the "Hyde Amendment" isn't quite useless but what little utility it has in keeping my tax dollars out of the killing innocent human beings for money business is better than nothing.

Far better for such a vile organization to never receive a dime of taxpayer money for any reason.

Far better than that for everyone employed in such a venture be placed under arrest.
Click to expand...

And that demonstrates why we shouldn't have the Hyde Amendment. It was intended as a compromise, prolifers don't appreciate it, so just get rid of it and fund all abortions.

And good luck with your insurrection, you big ol' internet warrior, you.
 
Cardinal said:
And that demonstrates why we shouldn't have the Hyde Amendment. It was intended as a compromise, prolifers don't appreciate it, so just get rid of it and fund all abortions.

And good luck with your insurrection, you big ol' internet warrior, you.
Click to expand...

There is so many reasons for an insurrection really. Hell, the tax rate alone would be enough using the logic of the founders.
 
Henrin said:
Essentially it makes every taxpayer an accessory to the deaths of the unborn. I have no idea why liberals think it is right to force people to pay for a behavior that leads to the death of an innocent party.
Click to expand...

Anti-vaxxers don't appreciate their tax dollars going to vaccinate people, and Scientologists don't appreciate their tax dollars going to pay for antidepressants. I don't care what crazy people think.
 
Cardinal said:
Anti-vaxxers don't appreciate their tax dollars going to vaccinate people, and Scientologists don't appreciate their tax dollars going to pay for antidepressants. I don't care what crazy people think.
Click to expand...

So sixty-eight percent of the population is crazy? I guess sane people are in short supply in your world.

Oh and being against vaccines is not crazy. You might want to learn what mental illness means.
 
Henrin said:
So sixty-eight percent of the population is crazy? I guess sane people are in short supply in your world.
Click to expand...

Sixty eight percent of the population is made up of Scientologists and anti-vaxxers? Can you link to that?
 
Cardinal said:
Sixty eight percent of the population is made up of Scientologists and anti-vaxxers? Can you link to that?
Click to expand...

No, sixty-eight percent of the population is opposed to government funded abortions. As for the percentage of Scientologists and anti-vaxxers, I have no idea and I don't care. Maybe liberals should stop worrying so much about those two groups.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Abortion is an elective medical procedure. Many of the same, and perhaps better, arguments could be made for other elective medical procedures (plastic surgery, braces, dental implants and lasik) being publicly funded.
Click to expand...

And pregnancy is a completely preventable social procedure. I can think of no reason why I should pay for the consequences of your chosen social life.
 
Henrin said:
No, sixty-eight percent of the population is opposed to government funded abortions.
Click to expand...

Why did you mention them? I was talking about Scientologists and anti-vaxxers. You don't focus very well.
 
Cardinal said:
Why did you mention them? I was talking about Scientologists and anti-vaxxers. You don't focus very well.
Click to expand...

The thread is about government funded abortions, you know.
 
Henrin said:
The thread is about government funded abortions, you know.
Click to expand...

Yes, and I was talking about anti-vaxxers and Scientologists.
 
jimbo said:
And pregnancy is a completely preventable social procedure. I can think of no reason why I should pay for the consequences of your chosen social life.
Click to expand...

The common justification seems to be that it saves tax money over supporting yet another welfare case (and their mother?) for (at least?) 18 years. In other words, the taxpayer is committed either way.
 
minnie616 said:
Published August 17, 2016 - 12:05am



Read more:


Democrats seek reversal of ban on federal abortion funding | West Hawaii Today

For years the Hyde amendment has made it very difficult for low-income women to obtain a legal abortion that is much more accessible for woman with good incomes.

From: Fund Abortion Now . Org
Click to expand...

how about the couple that conceives together, they can pay together to get the abortion

why is the guy not in the equation?

why does it have to be the government paying for "your" mistakes?
 
Cardinal said:
And that demonstrates why we shouldn't have the Hyde Amendment. It was intended as a compromise, prolifers don't appreciate it, so just get rid of it and fund all abortions.

And good luck with your insurrection, you big ol' internet warrior, you.
Click to expand...

I just said it was better than nothing, but the protections should go much further. Maybe learn to read and comprehend English?
 
gdgyva said:
how about the couple that conceives together, they can pay together to get the abortion

why is the guy not in the equation?

why does it have to be the government paying for "your" mistakes?
Click to expand...

If the one, or two can't afford the abortion, how can they afford to NOT have the abortion?

Which is going to cost the tax payer more money?

If your concern is for the tax payer, covering the cost of the abortion is FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR cheaper than covering the cost of not having an abortion.
 
Dragonfly said:
If the one, or two can't afford the abortion, how can they afford to NOT have the abortion?

Which is going to cost the tax payer more money?

If your concern is for the tax payer, covering the cost of the abortion is FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR cheaper than covering the cost of not having an abortion.
Click to expand...

Socialism, folks in all its naked glory.

Socialized medicine is not a shield... Make no mistake, it is a sword.

And Dragonfly here wants to use it.

... Just monstrous.
 
Dragonfly said:
If the one, or two can't afford the abortion, how can they afford to NOT have the abortion?

Which is going to cost the tax payer more money?

If your concern is for the tax payer, covering the cost of the abortion is FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR cheaper than covering the cost of not having an abortion.
Click to expand...

Support my liberal idea, so that my other liberal idea doesn't cost you money. You know what I could do? I could just support repealing your other liberal idea.
 
Dragonfly said:
If the one, or two can't afford the abortion, how can they afford to NOT have the abortion?

Which is going to cost the tax payer more money?

If your concern is for the tax payer, covering the cost of the abortion is FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR cheaper than covering the cost of not having an abortion.
Click to expand...

no

time to stop being a nanny state

time for people to pull up their big boy and girl pants and act like adults

we coddle way too much....and this screwed up society is the results

kids that arent ready for adulthood....arent ready for jobs....arent ready to be productive citizens

no....they want an abortion....they need to pay for it

no government funded abortions....period!
 
I say "oh well".

By listening to some of the pro-lifers on this board....the federal government has been paying for abortions without restriction SINCE the Hyde amendment.

There should be no ramp up in whining from that crew.;)
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The common justification seems to be that it saves tax money over supporting yet another welfare case (and their mother?) for (at least?) 18 years. In other words, the taxpayer is committed either way.
Click to expand...

The taxpayer is committed not simply "either way" but in all three possible scenarios, actually. Pay for a one-time abortion, a lifetime of medicaid and welfare, or hosting the person as a "guest of the state" or through homeless shelters and costly emergency room visits. Come hell or high water we're footing a bill. It's up to us to decide which bill causes the biggest ulcer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom