America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 5 years ago by Speyside. 209 replies replies.
5 Pages<12345>
Pro choice/Pro life discussion
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
victor809 Offline
#51 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 1:07 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Gene363 wrote:
Well, you'd be wrong, again. So what is your count?


So now your stance is that you know women who are pleased they had abortions?
Ewok126 Offline
#52 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 3:18 AM EST
Joined: 06-25-2017
Posts: 4,356
I am both pro choice and pro life. I guess that would make me confused?

Abortion is not for me or my wife, I have a tendency to place my feelings towards the fetus because I know what it can become. I also see a fetus as a chance at future hope. Keywords being "A CHANCE" and to wipe it out to me is a waste but, on the other hand I have no right to tell any woman that she has to carry full term. Exactly like no one has the right to tell me what to do with my body.

Before my father passed his kidneys failed. I was not forced to donate a kidney, I was not forced to even see if I could donate. If I could have donated it could have saved his life or extended it for a longer period of time. The choice was mine and mine alone. I see this kind of thing in the same fashion. I was not pushed or coerced by his wife, his mother or any of his immediate family. Much less from society which is as it should be. My father was only 42 so still very young. I made my choice and tried but we was not compatible. I had to do what I had to live with. I think women should be given the same respect and dignity when it comes to aborting. If I had said no, I am sure my father's mother would have been very pissed at me and so would have the rest of my family but that was a choice that only I could make and would have to live with.

As far as having a choice on where our tax money goes. Honestly if all of us was give a choice we would not pay taxes at all. I do not like that my tax money is used towards things I do not agree with but I am not given that choice. No matter which wing is in control some of my tax money will always go to things I do not agree with. So, I try not to worry with things I can not change.

This is just me, I know there are others that think and feel differently and that is cool. Why, well because just like me they have to go to sleep at night with there own conscious, that is their choice, their life. It is not up to me or anyone else to try and change that and take that from them. Any how, that is where I stand at this particular moment in time.
Buckwheat Offline
#53 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 8:05 AM EST
Joined: 04-15-2004
Posts: 12,251
I'm pro, "The government should stay out of it!". fog
dstieger Offline
#54 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 8:42 AM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
bgz wrote:
That's true, murder is defined as an unlawful killing.

Abortion != murder.

Looks like today is an agree with victor day.



Looks like my 'agree with victor day' is today...I agree with most of what Victor and bgz have posted to on this thread. I acknowledge your point, Gene, that many women who have had abortions struggle with having made that decision later in life. I'm not sure I understand it....probably takes a woman to really understand it....then again I'm much more 'anti-regrets' (about anything I made a conscious decision about) than most women I've known.

I miss wheel....
MACS Offline
#55 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 9:20 AM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,741
fiddler898 wrote:
Perfect. A bunch of old fart cigar smokers telling women what to do with their bodies.

Abortion equals murder? Hah! When we see you out there standing against capital punishment, then maybe you’ll have some credibility.

Maybe.


Not really interested in the debate at hand, but to compare the two is idiotic.

One did something to deserve death, the other is innocent.
MACS Offline
#56 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 9:21 AM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,741
Buckwheat wrote:
I'm pro, "The government should stay out of it!". fog


Agreed.
bgz Offline
#57 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 10:16 AM EST
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Buckwheat wrote:
I'm pro, "The government should stay out of it!". fog


Yes, definitely agree with that statement for most things.

Keep regulations as minimal as possible across the board.
Gene363 Offline
#58 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 10:23 AM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,797
victor809 wrote:
So now your stance is that you know women who are pleased they had abortions?


Just the opposite, now answer the question?
Gene363 Offline
#59 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 10:30 AM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,797

No answer required, but I wonder how many pro abortion folks have children or grandchildren.

My point of view changed considerably after becoming a Father and again a Grandfather. You don't know what you don't know. It doesn't mean you cannot have an option, (Victor) but an experience that can shape your opinion.
opelmanta1900 Offline
#60 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 10:42 AM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
frankj1 wrote:


And as for the OP, Spey, I am staunchly Pro-Choice. However, I choose life, it is a choice after all, but I do not feel my choice should be the law of the land for women...nor should the choice of other fat cigar smoking pasty skinned old white guys be the forced choice for women and their bodies.

staunch supporter of decriminalization of all drugs I assume? my body my choice? I cant imagine anyone thinking an abortion is healthier than a line of coke...
bgz Offline
#61 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 10:53 AM EST
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Gene363 wrote:
No answer required, but I wonder how many pro abortion folks have children or grandchildren.

My point of view changed considerably after becoming a Father and again a Grandfather. You don't know what you don't know. It doesn't mean you cannot have an option, (Victor) but an experience that can shape your opinion.


I'm a father, and I'm pro abortion. Was abortion right for my wife and I? No, it wasn't, we wanted kids. Who am I to tell someone else that it's not right for them?

Something that always baffled me about the far Right... if you're so anti-regulation, then why do you want to regulate abortion?

Doesn't make sense.

I lean right, and I prefer minimal regulations... not quite libertarian hard core beliefs, but ... well, I guess I would be a moderate libertarian if you had to put a label on me. That's besides the point.

Point is, if you preach anti-regulation, then you shouldn't want to regulate abortion. More abortions means less welfare, less money being paid to prison systems, basically less money being shelled out for all kinds of stuff.

The only reason I could see for wanting to ban abortions is to have a higher supply of cheap labor. You know most of the would be abortions are going to vote liberal don't you?

Wait... both parties are backwards on this argument, rofl...
tailgater Offline
#62 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 11:03 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
In a perfect world abortion would be legal, yet never performed.

Meanwhile, it has to remain legal.
1. making it illegal wouldn't stop it.
2. The Supreme Court kinda already ruled on this one.

Abortion isn't murder, as already pointed out.
But it is absolutely killing an unborn child.

It is a CHOICE. As such, it should not involve government money.

The father should either have a say in the abortion, or they should have a say in the support of the child.

I'm Catholic. When my wife and I were about to get married we spoke with a priest during pre-cana (sp?). We told him were were not yet having kids and about our birth control efforts. There was never any mention of the rhythm method. I think I even joked about that.
Despite what you read in the news, the Church knows we're sinners and have premarital sex with no intention of getting pregnant.

Haven't any of these women ever heard of adoption?
tailgater Offline
#63 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 11:06 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Speyside wrote:
I am pro choice, my friend Dan is pro life. I feel strongly that none of his tax money should fund abortions and twice as much of my tax money should fund abortions. I am not talking about him paying less taxes and me paying more taxes. Rather a redistribution of how part of our taxes are spent.

Also I think abortion is wrong, but feel a womans choice to control her own body takes precedence until such time as the fetus could become a viable human being outside of the womb.

Not looking for heated discussion, rather I thought these would be good discussions.



That doesn't make sense. At all.

If you and I both pay $100 in taxes, and $10 of your money goes towards abortion, then you're only spending $90 to my $100 for everything else.
tailgater Offline
#64 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 11:06 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
And for the record, I practice what I preach.

I will NEVER get an abortion.
bgz Offline
#65 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 11:20 AM EST
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
I leave an abortion in the toilet every morning.
Speyside Offline
#66 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 11:30 AM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Joe, I guess math isn't your thing. We both pay $100 of tax. But instead of each of us having $5 used for abortions. $10 of my tax is used for abortions and $0 of your tax is used for abortions. Same $10 total used for abortion, but none of your money was used for abortions. You could argue what difference does it make. The difference is you would know you didn't pay for an abortion.
victor809 Offline
#67 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 11:33 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Gene363 wrote:
Just the opposite, now answer the question?


Then your comprehension is poor.
I stated:
"The chances of him having a friend who is both pleased and vocal about an abortion are about the same as me having a friend who's a vocal Evangelical."

You chose to state I was wrong and that just the opposite is true.
opelmanta1900 Offline
#68 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 11:37 AM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
Speyside wrote:
Joe, I guess math isn't your thing. We both pay $100 of tax. But instead of each of us having $5 used for abortions. $10 of my tax is used for abortions and $0 of your tax is used for abortions. Same $10 total used for abortion, but none of your money was used for abortions. You could argue what difference does it make. The difference is you would know you didn't pay for an abortion.

I think his point was that if you get to take ten of your tax dollars and use it for abortion funding, you're only paying 90% of what I'm paying towards things that should actually be funded by tax payers... If you love abortion so much, you can pay 110% taxes... Then it's even...
opelmanta1900 Offline
#69 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 11:38 AM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
victor809 wrote:
Then your comprehension is poor.
I stated:
"The chances of him having a friend who is both pleased and vocal about an abortion are about the same as me having a friend who's a vocal Evangelical."

You chose to state I was wrong and that just the opposite is true.


Are we not friends?
Gene363 Offline
#70 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 11:41 AM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,797
victor809 wrote:
Then your comprehension is poor.
I stated:
"The chances of him having a friend who is both pleased and vocal about an abortion are about the same as me having a friend who's a vocal Evangelical."

You chose to state I was wrong and that just the opposite is true.



And... you're still wrong and failed to answer my question. On the positive side, you did bring up reading comprehension, you might want to work on yours.
victor809 Offline
#71 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 11:41 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
So I think what Gene is saying is that once one is a father or grandfather, their intellect is compromised and they are no longer able to make rational decisions relating to abortion. I won't disagree with him. Abortion laws should probably only be made by people like me...
victor809 Offline
#72 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 11:44 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Gene363 wrote:
And... you're still wrong and failed to answer my question. On the positive side, you did bring up reading comprehension, you might want to work on yours.


Sigh.

If you believe that women who have had an abortion regret it 15 years later. Then why do you reference friends who are both pleased with and vocal about their past abortions.

You can't have it both ways gene. And I'm a male. I can't have an abortion. I have paid for them.
Gene363 Offline
#73 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 11:50 AM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,797
bgz wrote:
I'm a father, and I'm pro abortion. Was abortion right for my wife and I? No, it wasn't, we wanted kids. Who am I to tell someone else that it's not right for them?

Something that always baffled me about the far Right... if you're so anti-regulation, then why do you want to regulate abortion?

Doesn't make sense.

I lean right, and I prefer minimal regulations... not quite libertarian hard core beliefs, but ... well, I guess I would be a moderate libertarian if you had to put a label on me. That's besides the point.

Point is, if you preach anti-regulation, then you shouldn't want to regulate abortion. More abortions means less welfare, less money being paid to prison systems, basically less money being shelled out for all kinds of stuff.

The only reason I could see for wanting to ban abortions is to have a higher supply of cheap labor. You know most of the would be abortions are going to vote liberal don't you?

Wait... both parties are backwards on this argument, rofl...


Gene363 wrote:
If a Mother choses to murder, (abortion = murder) her child, has consent from the Father and isn't past the first trimester, let the miserable biotches have at, the government has no business up a woman's skirt....


Libertarians value liberty, some the liberty of the unborn and most would not regulate abortion, but neither group would condone the use of government funding for abortions.

As far as the so called, "benefits" of abortion reducing welfare and prison populations, I would add genocide.
Speyside Offline
#74 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 11:51 AM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Opel, I guess math is not your thing either. It is a net zero. We presently pay $200 in taxes. $10 of which goes toward abortions. In the scenario I suggest We pay $200 in taxes. $10 of which goes toward abortions. The difference is Tail who is against abortion has none of his money go towards abortion. We have both paid the same amount of taxes. In my original post I stated I am against abortion and outlined why I am willing to pay taxes for abortion.
Gene363 Offline
#75 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 11:53 AM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,797
victor809 wrote:
So I think what Gene is saying is that once one is a father or grandfather, their intellect is compromised and they are no longer able to make rational decisions relating to abortion. I won't disagree with him. Abortion laws should probably only be made by people like me...


Sadly, chances are you'll never really know.
Gene363 Offline
#76 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 11:55 AM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,797
victor809 wrote:
Sigh.

If you believe that women who have had an abortion regret it 15 years later. Then why do you reference friends who are both pleased with and vocal about their past abortions.

You can't have it both ways gene. And I'm a male. I can't have an abortion. I have paid for them.


And you fail to understand that not all women think alike.
victor809 Offline
#77 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 11:55 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Huh?
Why would that be sad in the least?
opelmanta1900 Offline
#78 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 11:56 AM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
Speyside wrote:
Opel, I guess math is not your thing either. It is a net zero. We presently pay $200 in taxes. $10 of which goes toward abortions. In the scenario I suggest We pay $200 in taxes. $10 of which goes toward abortions. The difference is Tail who is against abortion has none of his money go towards abortion. We have both paid the same amount of taxes. In my original post I stated I am against abortion and outlined why I am willing to pay taxes for abortion.

And logic isn't your thing... We're both working with a mixed bag here, just try to follow me...

You pay 100 in taxes.
Joe pays 100 in taxes.
A road needs paved at the tax payers expense.
The job will cost 200.
Joe has 100 to contribute to the road.
After you contribute 10 to abortion, how much do you have to contribute to the road?
opelmanta1900 Offline
#79 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 11:58 AM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
victor809 wrote:
Huh?
Why would that be sad in the least?

I'm with you... You've got hepatitis ridden dogs to adopt 3 months before their miserable death... You don't need to be making babies...
Gene363 Offline
#80 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 11:58 AM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,797
opelmanta1900 wrote:
I think his point was that if you get to take ten of your tax dollars and use it for abortion funding, you're only paying 90% of what I'm paying towards things that should actually be funded by tax payers... If you love abortion so much, you can pay 110% taxes... Then it's even...


You are correct. This disparity will become clear next April when high state tax resident will be limited deducting their stay income taxes from their Federal tax bill.
victor809 Offline
#81 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 12:00 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Gene363 wrote:
And you fail to understand that not all women think alike.


Where did I say they did? Jesus Christ gene... Be smarter.
I was specifically referencing sampling bias which in and of itself acknowledges that not all "of group x" think alike.

Ok... Let me spell this out very slowly for you.

You select your set of friends based on who you get along with. That likely requires having similar values. As such, your sample size of "women who regret abortions they had in the past" is likely irrelevant, because that's exactly the group which would lean anti abortion, and would then have things in common with you.

Your inability to understand my statements, claim I'm wrong when I say one thing, and wrong when I then state the exact opposite is ridiculous.
victor809 Offline
#82 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 12:02 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
opelmanta1900 wrote:
I'm with you... You've got hepatitis ridden dogs to adopt 3 months before their miserable death... You don't need to be making babies...


Agreed. And I prefer dogs... Not by much... But I don't need to pay as much attention to them and they die earlier.
opelmanta1900 Offline
#83 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 12:07 PM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
And easier...
bgz Offline
#84 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 12:12 PM EST
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Gene363 wrote:
Libertarians value liberty, some the liberty of the unborn and most would not regulate abortion, but neither group would condone the use of government funding for abortions.

As far as the so called, "benefits" of abortion reducing welfare and prison populations, I would add genocide.


I would argue if we are a nation that has a welfare system, and I reluctantly think that we should, then to keep the outgoing funds to a minimum, it is in our best interest to fund abortions.

Children in single parent homes are far more likely to become criminals, that's a fact.

It really is simple math. $1k now, or $2k per month till the child is no longer a child, then likely $45k per year to house them in a prison indefinitely.

Which would you rather pay?

On to your second point...

You're pro genocide? Which race would you target first?

Equating abortions to genocide?!?!?!... all I can say about that is wtf while rofl.
Speyside Offline
#85 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 12:24 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Nothing to follow. Originally $190 would be available to fund the road, not $200. Whith what I am stating $190 would still be available to fund the road. What you are stating is that no money would be used to fund abortions and $200 would be available to fund the road. That is inaccurate. I guess my concept just isn't registering for you or you can only accept that no tax money is used for abortions. What I am trying to offer is a way that someone who is religiously, ethically, or morally against abortion isn't forced to pay for abortions with a portion of their tax money. I have a problem that under the present system they are forced to pay for abortions with part of their tax money. This is a net zero as far as the amount of tax money used to pay for services.
RMAN4443 Offline
#86 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 12:28 PM EST
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
bgz wrote:
I leave an abortion in the toilet every morning.

Awwwww,, it looks just like you......Full of crap LOL
bgz Offline
#87 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 12:39 PM EST
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
You want to cuddle it?
RMAN4443 Offline
#88 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 12:40 PM EST
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
no, that's ok....just give us a courtesy flush
Just Relax Offline
#89 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 1:31 PM EST
Joined: 09-26-2016
Posts: 587
tailgater wrote:
In a perfect world abortion would be legal, yet never performed.

Meanwhile, it has to remain legal.
1. making it illegal wouldn't stop it.
2. The Supreme Court kinda already ruled on this one.

Abortion isn't murder, as already pointed out.
But it is absolutely killing an unborn child.

Haven't any of these women ever heard of adoption?



I'm in agreement with this. Expanding on the last line is they've all heard of adoption. Right now adoption is very difficult - way more than it should be.

The battle to eliminate abortions is already over. Efforts should be instead focused on providing a more positive alternative for that girl than the only possible light she sees to life continuing in her safety net is an abortion and knowing she is going to regret that decision every day the rest of her life before even walking in to have it done. Pro lifers condemning and spewing hate towards her isn't the way to achieve this.

Government can't be run in a democracy by trying to force a certain belief system on the masses no matter what the system is.
delta1 Offline
#90 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 1:43 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,776
well said, Dave
tailgater Offline
#91 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 1:47 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Speyside wrote:
Joe, I guess math isn't your thing. We both pay $100 of tax. But instead of each of us having $5 used for abortions. $10 of my tax is used for abortions and $0 of your tax is used for abortions. Same $10 total used for abortion, but none of your money was used for abortions. You could argue what difference does it make. The difference is you would know you didn't pay for an abortion.


Dude.
Don't embarrass yourself.

Frank is good wif words, but I know numbers.

I pay $100.
Of that $100, $100 goes towards tax thingies other than abortion.

You pay $100.
Of that $100, only $90 goes towards tax thingies other than abortion.
Because your other $10 goes to the abortion thingies.

This is a cigar forum, but smoke and mirrors doesn't work with me.

The ONLY way to make your statement true would be to reduce my taxes, or increase your taxes.


tailgater Offline
#92 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 1:50 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
opelmanta1900 wrote:
And logic isn't your thing... We're both working with a mixed bag here, just try to follow me...

You pay 100 in taxes.
Joe pays 100 in taxes.
A road needs paved at the tax payers expense.
The job will cost 200.
Joe has 100 to contribute to the road.
After you contribute 10 to abortion, how much do you have to contribute to the road?


See?
Words ain't my thang.
This is much more clearer..er than I could state it.
tailgater Offline
#93 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 2:03 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Speyside wrote:
Nothing to follow. Originally $190 would be available to fund the road, not $200. Whith what I am stating $190 would still be available to fund the road. What you are stating is that no money would be used to fund abortions and $200 would be available to fund the road. That is inaccurate. I guess my concept just isn't registering for you or you can only accept that no tax money is used for abortions. What I am trying to offer is a way that someone who is religiously, ethically, or morally against abortion isn't forced to pay for abortions with a portion of their tax money. I have a problem that under the present system they are forced to pay for abortions with part of their tax money. This is a net zero as far as the amount of tax money used to pay for services.



Spey, it's not going to "register" with anyone who understands basic math.


Maybe we can explain it better with one of Algore's lock boxes...
Gene363 Offline
#94 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 2:06 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,797
bgz wrote:
I would argue if we are a nation that has a welfare system, and I reluctantly think that we should, then to keep the outgoing funds to a minimum, it is in our best interest to fund abortions.

Children in single parent homes are far more likely to become criminals, that's a fact.

It really is simple math. $1k now, or $2k per month till the child is no longer a child, then likely $45k per year to house them in a prison indefinitely.

Which would you rather pay?

On to your second point...

You're pro genocide? Which race would you target first?

Equating abortions to genocide?!?!?!... all I can say about that is wtf while rofl.


If almost a million people were murdered it might be called genocide.

"According to the Guttmacher Institute, an estimated 926,240 abortions took place in the United States in 2014—down from 1.06 million in 2011, 1.21 million abortions in 2008, 1.2 million in 2005, 1.29 million in 2002, 1.31 million in 2000 and 1.36 million in 1996. From 1973 through 2011, nearly 53 million legal abortions occurred in the U.S (AGI).

In 2014, approximately 19% of U.S. pregnancies (excluding spontaneous miscarriages) ended in abortion."
victor809 Offline
#95 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 2:12 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
So... There's a few problems...

1- taxes don't fund abortions... So it's a weird thing to complain about (and don't give me the whole "they supplement it through paying for other services"... We've had that discussion, government funded activities are very precise about separating pools of money)
2- even if taxes funded abortions (which they don't) as someone said above, taxes we pay fund all sorts of things we don't agree with. Taxes fund wars some percentage of our population may not like, they fund welfare or health care which some percentage of our population may not like. To claim they can't fund abortions because you don't want it to happen is not really a great position. A religious pacifist could claim they shouldn't have to pay for any military taxes.

3- adoption doesn't solve the fundamental problem... We have too many people. Every damn kid born is another
DrafterX Offline
#96 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 2:13 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,535
Think
So, does it count if da baby spontaneously combusts..?? Huh
bgz Offline
#97 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 2:15 PM EST
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Gene363 wrote:
If almost a million people were murdered it might be called genocide.

"According to the Guttmacher Institute, an estimated 926,240 abortions took place in the United States in 2014—down from 1.06 million in 2011, 1.21 million abortions in 2008, 1.2 million in 2005, 1.29 million in 2002, 1.31 million in 2000 and 1.36 million in 1996. From 1973 through 2011, nearly 53 million legal abortions occurred in the U.S (AGI).

In 2014, approximately 19% of U.S. pregnancies (excluding spontaneous miscarriages) ended in abortion."


If true, then I see that as excellent news. If we could get that number up to like 30% to 40% over the next decade, that would do wonders to curb our population growth, and to build a better work force as automation takes over our low skill labor needs.
Gene363 Offline
#98 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 2:16 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,797
victor809 wrote:
Where did I say they did? Jesus Christ gene... Be smarter.
I was specifically referencing sampling bias which in and of itself acknowledges that not all "of group x" think alike.

Ok... Let me spell this out very slowly for you.

You select your set of friends based on who you get along with. That likely requires having similar values. As such, your sample size of "women who regret abortions they had in the past" is likely irrelevant, because that's exactly the group which would lean anti abortion, and would then have things in common with you.

Your inability to understand my statements, claim I'm wrong when I say one thing, and wrong when I then state the exact opposite is ridiculous.


You're so busy making assumptions that you cannot see that you are wrong, still. It is not impossible that I know people on the opposite ends the abortion issue. Perhaps you never associate with people that are not just like you, but some folks are a lot more open minded.
Gene363 Offline
#99 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 2:19 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,797
bgz wrote:
If true, then I see that as excellent news. If we could get that number up to like 30% to 40% over the next decade, that would do wonders to curb our population growth, and to build a better work force as automation takes over our low skill labor needs.


There are a lot more effective ways to get rid of people than abortion if that is your aim. Germany, Russia and China all had some effective programs.
dstieger Offline
#100 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 2:20 PM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
Maybe Spey's right and we need to challenge our assumptions. Let's imagine a country in which every person gets to say what his taxes will pay for....I'd love to see the test model.....everyone goes to a web site that shows their tax burden and lists about 5,000 line items that need funding....and we all get to decide how much of our money goes to each. Could be a great exercise in national spending for everyone....

maybe the agencies that submit their line items include a funding cap -- say, 10% over highest average of last three years spending....once that cap is reached, you have to put your money somewhere else. You pay your tax first, you get to fund your pet projects.....You pay on April 15, you get to pay for abortions, even if you're Gene...that is, unless Spey and friends topped it off early
Users browsing this topic
Guest
5 Pages<12345>
Back to Top