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
bgz Offline
#101 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 2:22 PM EST
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Gene363 wrote:
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.


You don't have to get rid of them if they're never born... and it's a lot less messy.
victor809 Offline
#102 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 2:26 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Gene363 wrote:
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.


Gene. You're either being obtuse or intentionally cryptic to avoid being called out in a lie.
If you're friends with women who are happy about an abortion they had in the past and have told you, then say so. And if you are, feel free to take back your statement referencing women regretting abortions. I don't care, neither way is it "statistics"... All I want you to do is stop with the "you're wrong about x"... Then "you're wrong about -1(x)" BS... Make an actual statement.
Speyside Offline
#103 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 3:26 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Dave, I know this could be opening a proverbial Pandoras box. The reality is that my scenario is it would never happen. I would like it to happen just for abortions. The Hyde act allows federal and state money to be used for three specific pregnancies. Rape pregnancy, incest pregnancy, and pregnancies where the mothers life is at risk due to the pregnancy.
Gene363 Offline
#104 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 5:46 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,810
victor809 wrote:
Gene. You're either being obtuse or intentionally cryptic to avoid being called out in a lie.
If you're friends with women who are happy about an abortion they had in the past and have told you, then say so. And if you are, feel free to take back your statement referencing women regretting abortions. I don't care, neither way is it "statistics"... All I want you to do is stop with the "you're wrong about x"... Then "you're wrong about -1(x)" BS... Make an actual statement.


victor809 wrote:
Yeah I'm gonna bet that the sample size of women willing to tell gene that they had an abortion in the past is pretty small. 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.


Gene363 wrote:
Well, you'd be wrong, again. So what is your count?


You able about a sample size, though I didn't claim to do a study. You never answer my question, but wander off to avoid the answer. You did say you have died for an abortion, but that is not very specific and you do live in California.

victor809 wrote:
So now your stance is that you know women who are pleased they had abortions?


Your assumption, period and no response to my question.

Gene363 wrote:
Just the opposite, now answer the question?


Your assumption continues, but you impune my comprehension:

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.



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.


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.


I didn't say it was both way, you made that assumption.


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.


Gene363 wrote:
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.


victor809 wrote:
Gene. You're either being obtuse or intentionally cryptic to avoid being called out in a lie.
If you're friends with women who are happy about an abortion they had in the past and have told you, then say so. And if you are, feel free to take back your statement referencing women regretting abortions. I don't care, neither way is it "statistics"... All I want you to do is stop with the "you're wrong about x"... Then "you're wrong about -1(x)" BS... Make an actual statement.


Lie? It would be a lie if I stoped saying your wrong, because you are. I made my statement and your didn't like it, it's your problem, not mine.
victor809 Offline
#105 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 6:03 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Gene... Go up your post halfway. The "both" is not an assumption. That is a criteria. If you have female friends who are both x and y....

The entire conversation is around whether the women you reference who "regret having abortions years later" is anything other than your sampling error. Ie... Where did you get that information.

You implied that it came from friends.

Now... A rational person would realize that a woman who is both pleased she got an abortion, and willing to talk about how pleased she is, is not likely someone who would be close friends with someone vocally anti-abortion. Therefore, it is unlikely you would even have that conversation with someone who doesn't regret an abortion.

Funny enough, you stated I was wrong in the above assumption. If the above assumption is wrong, then you have had conversations with women who do not regret their abortion at all.

If you've had conversations with women who don't regret their abortions, then why the f--k would you make the implication that the "nurturing female mind" will regret their abortion many years later?

Choose one or the other. You can't make both statements.
Ewok126 Offline
#106 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 6:47 PM EST
Joined: 06-25-2017
Posts: 4,356
It boils down to birds of a feather. This is what taints the sampling.

to assume that "All women or even a majority or minority" does or would feel a specific way just because "My friends" ,which would equate to .000000000000000001 of the total population, feels a specific way is kind of off the chain logicly.

Now at the same time, I can not say this way of feeling or thinking is wrong or right as a whole. I can only say that it is wrong for me. I also think that letting emotion get involved when it comes to others that feel or think the opposite of what I think and feel is just as off the chain logicly.

In other words ( just so there is no confusion or assumption in what I am saying)

I think you both are freggin nuts. Beer
fiddler898 Offline
#107 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 7:16 PM EST
Joined: 06-15-2009
Posts: 3,782
Gene363 wrote:
So, you agree then that baby you're so anxious to kill gets their day in court, including appeals.


I’m anxious to kill? You’re a sick puppy, pal.
delta1 Offline
#108 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 7:43 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,782
I remember when abortions were illegal...those were tough times for many young girls and their families...quite a few died from botched back-alley abortions or "home abortions."
Ewok126 Offline
#109 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 7:59 PM EST
Joined: 06-25-2017
Posts: 4,356
delta1 wrote:
I remember when abortions were illegal...those were tough times for many young girls and their families...quite a few died from botched back-alley abortions or "home abortions."



True, I recall other women and men that would offer the hush hush service and at times it would lead to the death of the young woman when things would go wrong. Death because of infections due to unsterile environment, bleeding to death etc.
Gene363 Offline
#110 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 10:43 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,810
victor809 wrote:
Gene... Go up your post halfway. The "both" is not an assumption. That is a criteria. If you have female friends who are both x and y....

The entire conversation is around whether the women you reference who "regret having abortions years later" is anything other than your sampling error. Ie... Where did you get that information.

You implied that it came from friends.

Now... A rational person would realize that a woman who is both pleased she got an abortion, and willing to talk about how pleased she is, is not likely someone who would be close friends with someone vocally anti-abortion. Therefore, it is unlikely you would even have that conversation with someone who doesn't regret an abortion.

Funny enough, you stated I was wrong in the above assumption. If the above assumption is wrong, then you have had conversations with women who do not regret their abortion at all.

If you've had conversations with women who don't regret their abortions, then why the f--k would you make the implication that the "nurturing female mind" will regret their abortion many years later?

Choose one or the other. You can't make both statements.


I didn't make both statements, I don't care about your criteria, assumptions, implications etc, you are pro abortion, is your position based on any discussions with women that had an abortion some time ago? I happen to have heard some and their stories and they have an impact on my POV. Perhaps you are afraid of what you might hear or you just don't care, either way it's your problem, not mine.
Abrignac Offline
#111 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 11:09 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,270
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.


As already stated this makes absolutely zero sense. Imagine the bureaucracy required to implement such idea.
opelmanta1900 Offline
#112 Posted: Tue, Oct 9 2018, 11:23 PM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
ewok said taints...
Ewok126 Offline
#113 Posted: Wed, Oct 10 2018, 3:41 AM EST
Joined: 06-25-2017
Posts: 4,356
opelmanta1900 wrote:
ewok said taints...


You have a good eye! Herfing
JadeRose Offline
#114 Posted: Wed, Oct 10 2018, 5:54 AM EST
Joined: 05-15-2008
Posts: 19,525
dstieger wrote:


I miss wheel....





It's funny you would say this. I was thinking of Billy while looking through this thread. I always found wheel's take on abortion and the sanctity of a human life interesting and, while I completely disagreed with him, I respected the hell out of him for standing up for it with no compromise.
victor809 Offline
#115 Posted: Wed, Oct 10 2018, 11:27 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Gene... You simply did try to have it both ways. You can deny all you want, but unless you clarify rather than just say "no you're wrong" your argument is useless.

As for talking to women you know... While admirable, isn't really any way to decide a law. You think we should make abortions illegal because some unknown percentage of women may regret making the choice later in life? Because some have told you they feel they made a wrong choice, you think it's smart to make the choice for all women. That's.... Really paternalistic....
Gene363 Offline
#116 Posted: Wed, Oct 10 2018, 12:38 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,810
victor809 wrote:
Gene... You simply did try to have it both ways. You can deny all you want, but unless you clarify rather than just say "no you're wrong" your argument is useless.

As for talking to women you know... While admirable, isn't really any way to decide a law. You think we should make abortions illegal because some unknown percentage of women may regret making the choice later in life? Because some have told you they feel they made a wrong choice, you think it's smart to make the choice for all women. That's.... Really paternalistic....


I see, I'm "paternalistic" for listening to a woman's opinion, but you are saying women's input on abortion law is not important. LOL
Speyside Offline
#117 Posted: Wed, Oct 10 2018, 12:38 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Wow, I am amazed how many people can't or won't follow a simple concept. It would be adding a few lines of code to state and federal tax software. Then it would be 1 click of a listener button. Lets make it easier. The default is no tax money for abortions. If I want a portion of my tax money to fund abortions the I have to file on line and click the listener button. I don't think this will ever happen, bit don't state it makes zero sense, or there would be too much bureaucracy because you aren't following the concept.

So conservatives are confused by the concept and liberals are not, hmmmmmm.
victor809 Offline
#118 Posted: Wed, Oct 10 2018, 12:48 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Gene... You would be parternalistic for supporting a law because you're sure you know what's best for all women.

Doesn't matter if some sampling of women have told you they regret doing it. I regret dropping out of the sciences... You going to make a law requiring all students stay in their graduate schools, because they may regret leaving it at some point in the future?

Allowing something should be the default. Making something illegal should only be done if there is good reason. And I hate to tell you but "you little ladies might regret this in the future" is not a good reason.
DrafterX Offline
#119 Posted: Wed, Oct 10 2018, 12:59 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
I bet Monica regrets hers... Mellow
Gene363 Offline
#120 Posted: Wed, Oct 10 2018, 1:05 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,810
victor809 wrote:
Gene... You would be parternalistic for supporting a law because you're sure you know what's best for all women.

Doesn't matter if some sampling of women have told you they regret doing it. I regret dropping out of the sciences... You going to make a law requiring all students stay in their graduate schools, because they may regret leaving it at some point in the future?

Allowing something should be the default. Making something illegal should only be done if there is good reason. And I hate to tell you but "you little ladies might regret this in the future" is not a good reason.


Funny, I don't recall making abortion illegal, my original poset is quoted below, as well as Speyside's original post for a discussion of Pro Choice Vs For Life.

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.


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.

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.

Public money should not be used for abortions, it's murder, not health care. One possible exception, if three doctors agree that childbirth would cause the death of the Mother its healthcare and in that case public funds would be acceptable, however, the operation should also include a tubal ligation.

Our civilization will be judged by how we treat the youngest and the oldest members of society.



I did not say it should be illegal except a time restriction. It's my opinion abortion is killing a human. I know women that regret the decision to have an abortion and I also recognize the Motherhood drive in women. I think much of the advocacy for abortion on demand is driven by men that want to screw women, but not be responsible for what happens next. You can disagree all you want, twist my words around all day long but that is my opinion and you've offered nothing to change my opinion. In fact, your response confirms my opinion.
ShanaC@CigarBid Offline
#121 Posted: Wed, Oct 10 2018, 1:11 PM EST
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 1,090
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.



Sounds good, but never turns out that way (sigh)
victor809 Offline
#122 Posted: Wed, Oct 10 2018, 1:20 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Hahahaha... Fine, you didn't say it should be illegal... You just decided to call women who don't want to have a kid but find themselves in that position "miserable b-tches".... You're a real mensch. I hope you told your friends you keep referencing that you think they're miserable b-tches.

More amusingly, you also want women who are forced to have an abortion for their own safety to be required to have 3 Drs agree AND to forgo having their own child ever... You realize that sort of policy would end up with lots of women who are at risk for pregnancy health simply dying because they don't want to be sterilized...

And even more amusingly you seem to have the opinion that all women want children. This opinion that it's driven by men who want to screw but don't want the responsibility is ridiculous. What about women who want to screw but don't want children? Dude... It's the 2010s... Women aren't all baby machines.
RMAN4443 Offline
#123 Posted: Wed, Oct 10 2018, 1:23 PM EST
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
Jane you ignorant misguided slut.....

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/weekend-update-42278/3007643


Start video at 4:15....SNL from back in 1978

Anxious
Buckwheat Offline
#124 Posted: Wed, Oct 10 2018, 2:02 PM EST
Joined: 04-15-2004
Posts: 12,251
"Choose life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a FN big television, Choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players, and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol and dental insurance. Choose fixed-interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisure wear and matching luggage. Choose a three piece suite on hire purchase in a range of FN fabrics. Choose DIY and wondering who the F you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing FN junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, F'd-up brats you have spawned to replace yourselves. Choose your future. Choose life . . . But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life: I chose something else. And the reasons? There are no reasons."

And the updated version.

" 'Choose life' was a well meaning slogan from a 1980's anti-drug campaign and we used to add things to it, so I might say for example, choose... designer lingerie, in the vain hope of kicking some life back into a dead relationship. Choose handbags, choose high-heeled shoes, cashmere and silk, to make yourself feel what passes for happy. Choose an iPhone made in China by a woman who jumped out of a window and stick it in the pocket of your jacket fresh from a South-Asian Firetrap. Choose Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram and a thousand others ways to spew your bile across people you've never met. Choose updating your profile, tell the world what you had for breakfast and hope that someone, somewhere cares. Choose looking up old flames, desperate to believe that you don't look as bad as they do. Choose live-blogging, from your first wank 'til your last breath; human interaction reduced to nothing more than data. Choose ten things you never knew about celebrities who've had surgery. Choose screaming about abortion. Choose rape jokes, slut-shaming, revenge porn and an endless tide of depressing misogyny. Choose 9/11 never happened, and if it did, it was the Jews. Choose a zero-hour contract and a two-hour journey to work. And choose the same for your kids, only worse, and maybe tell yourself that it's better that they never happened. And then sit back and smother the pain with an unknown dose of an unknown drug made in somebody's FN kitchen. Choose unfulfilled promise and wishing you'd done it all differently. Choose never learning from your own mistakes. Choose watching history repeat itself. Choose the slow reconciliation towards what you can get, rather than what you always hoped for. Settle for less and keep a brave face on it. Choose disappointment and choose losing the ones you love, then as they fall from view, a piece of you dies with them until you can see that one day in the future, piece by piece, they will all be gone and there'll be nothing left of you to call alive or dead. Choose your future, Veronika. Choose life."
tailgater Offline
#125 Posted: Wed, Oct 10 2018, 4:13 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
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


You mean there is no "fund abortion" earmark on the latest budget?


Question.
Because I don't know, and can't be bothered to look up.
Does the ACA cover abortion?
tailgater Offline
#126 Posted: Wed, Oct 10 2018, 4:15 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
JadeRose wrote:
It's funny you would say this. I was thinking of Billy while looking through this thread. I always found wheel's take on abortion and the sanctity of a human life interesting and, while I completely disagreed with him, I respected the hell out of him for standing up for it with no compromise.


He was standing?
tailgater Offline
#127 Posted: Wed, Oct 10 2018, 4:32 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:


This opinion that it's driven by men who want to screw but don't want the responsibility is ridiculous. What about women who want to screw but don't want children? Dude... It's the 2010s... Women aren't all baby machines.



Responsibility.
There's that word. Again.

How dare we, as a society, demand a woman take responsibility for getting prego.

Yet, don't we demand that a man take responsibility if the woman chooses to keep the kid?
DrafterX Offline
#128 Posted: Wed, Oct 10 2018, 4:34 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
Ya.. but he can choose to be a deadbeat... Mellow
tailgater Offline
#129 Posted: Wed, Oct 10 2018, 4:36 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
When one side (pro choice) uses words like "her body, her choice", they try to simplify the topic. To make it appear there is a universal and simple solution.

There isn't.

I find the act of aborting a healthy unborn child to be horrific.
But I could never tell someone else they don't have that right.
And I can complain when my tax dollars get funneled directly or indirect into performing the act.

But worse than my tax dollars going into it, MUCH worse than me paying for all, is the cavalier attitude so many pro-choice advocates adopt. How they refuse to require educating the women prior to having that elective surgery. How their first question to learning their friend is pregnant is "are you going to keep it?".

And it's not a religious thing for me. According to the religious freaks, every load that doesn't land at the back of a vagina is a sin. And I'd be excommunicated by now.
But it is my opinion.


And for those who don't know: Pro-life and Choose-life are two distinctly separate battle cries.
I've witnessed pro-choicers get angry with people who advertised "Choose Life".
tailgater Offline
#130 Posted: Wed, Oct 10 2018, 4:37 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
DrafterX wrote:
Ya.. but he can choose to be a deadbeat... Mellow


So a dad who wants nothing to do with the kid is a deadbeat.
But a mom who wants nothing to do with the kid is simply expressing a choice.

Got it.
victor809 Offline
#131 Posted: Wed, Oct 10 2018, 5:11 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Tail... I can't be azzed to look it up either but I'm 98.2% sure abortions are not funded by the ACA. I'm not even sure they're funded under medical emergencies...
victor809 Offline
#132 Posted: Wed, Oct 10 2018, 5:15 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
... as for responsibility...
What the f--k do you think getting an abortion is? That's literally taking responsibility for becoming preggo and ensuring it does not result in an unwanted child.

If you get knocked up you have the following responsibility:
Making sure whatever thing you created doesn't make the world worse.

An abortion fulfills that responsibility.

What other responsibilities could one have?
victor809 Offline
#133 Posted: Wed, Oct 10 2018, 5:22 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Tail.... You find the idea of aborting a healthy unborn child horrific.
So?

I find the idea of a person having a child in this world horrific. Are you going to support my opinion? Somehow I doubt it. Both opinions are of as much value as a clump of aborted cells scraped out of the vacuum machine.... Actually less so... We could use those stem cells for research.

Do I think there is some inequality in the decision making between the woman and the man? Sure. But there's also inequality in the impact of having to feed the parasite for 9mo and the damage to ones body. There's also societal inequalities regarding the "deadbeat" status... So I'm fine with the woman being able to make the abort decision without the man's input. Ideally I'd like both sides to be able to pull the abort plug regardless of what the other side thinks, and make keeping it require both to sign on... But I know no one will agree with me on that.
Gene363 Offline
#134 Posted: Wed, Oct 10 2018, 6:17 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,810
victor809 wrote:
Hahahaha... Fine, you didn't say it should be illegal... You just decided to call women who don't want to have a kid but find themselves in that position "miserable b-tches".... You're a real mensch. I hope you told your friends you keep referencing that you think they're miserable b-tches.

More amusingly, you also want women who are forced to have an abortion for their own safety to be required to have 3 Drs agree AND to forgo having their own child ever... You realize that sort of policy would end up with lots of women who are at risk for pregnancy health simply dying because they don't want to be sterilized...

And even more amusingly you seem to have the opinion that all women want children. This opinion that it's driven by men who want to screw but don't want the responsibility is ridiculous. What about women who want to screw but don't want children? Dude... It's the 2010s... Women aren't all baby machines.


I'm glad you can laugh about abortion, carry on, as I already said, "You can disagree all you want, twist my words around all day long but that is my opinion and you've offered nothing to change my opinion. In fact, your response confirms my opinion."
DrafterX Offline
#135 Posted: Wed, Oct 10 2018, 6:27 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
Deadbeat was a reference to the non- child support paying Bassards... That comes a little later I guess... Mellow
delta1 Offline
#136 Posted: Wed, Oct 10 2018, 6:39 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,782
seems most pro-lifers who want to make abortion illegal assume that a fetus becomes a "person" at conception, and is deserving of Constitutional rights and protection...

Roe v Wade does not hold that, nor has any court decision ruled that a fetus is a person...since we are a nation of laws...and that is the law of the land...abortion is not equivalent to homicide...

the only way to change that is to pass an amendment to the Constitution...
bgz Offline
#137 Posted: Wed, Oct 10 2018, 6:54 PM EST
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
victor809 wrote:
... as for responsibility...
What the f--k do you think getting an abortion is? That's literally taking responsibility for becoming preggo and ensuring it does not result in an unwanted child.

If you get knocked up you have the following responsibility:
Making sure whatever thing you created doesn't make the world worse.

An abortion fulfills that responsibility.

What other responsibilities could one have?


That's a good line, I'm going to steal that some night when I'm drinking and arguing with pro-lifers.
delta1 Offline
#138 Posted: Wed, Oct 10 2018, 7:22 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,782
hmmmmm....I dunno.....that might make the world worse...
Ewok126 Offline
#139 Posted: Thu, Oct 11 2018, 2:04 AM EST
Joined: 06-25-2017
Posts: 4,356
delta1 wrote:
hmmmmm....I dunno.....that might make the world worse...


Not if you the one having to deal with the lil stinking, money grubbing, ingrate, germ infested meat sack bastids. OOOPS did I say that outloud. My bad. They so cute and precious and bring a lot of awe and wonder to my life. Yeah that is what I meant to say. Anxious Sarcasm
Buckwheat Offline
#140 Posted: Thu, Oct 11 2018, 8:09 AM EST
Joined: 04-15-2004
Posts: 12,251
tailgater wrote:
You mean there is no "fund abortion" earmark on the latest budget?


Question.
Because I don't know, and can't be bothered to look up.
Does the ACA cover abortion?


The short answer is no.
https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20150119/BILLS-114-HR7-IH-Filed.xml
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/142
However, some states do pay 100 percent of the cost of elective abortions without passing on any cost to the federal government.
bgz Offline
#141 Posted: Thu, Oct 11 2018, 8:59 AM EST
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
From a cost savings perspective, it makes sense to fund them opposed to funding the alternative.

Abortions save tax payers money. I've thought about it, and logically come to that conclusion every time.

1000 abortions is cheaper in the long run than funding one life long "should have been aborted"... especially if you can negotiate bulk rates.
tailgater Offline
#142 Posted: Thu, Oct 11 2018, 9:39 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
Tail... I can't be azzed to look it up either but I'm 98.2% sure abortions are not funded by the ACA. I'm not even sure they're funded under medical emergencies...


So they are paid for by the patient?

that doesn't sound accurate.
bgz Offline
#143 Posted: Thu, Oct 11 2018, 10:00 AM EST
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
I looked it up, they're not that expensive.
opelmanta1900 Offline
#144 Posted: Thu, Oct 11 2018, 10:06 AM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
bgz wrote:
From a cost savings perspective, it makes sense to fund them opposed to funding the alternative.

Abortions save tax payers money. I've thought about it, and logically come to that conclusion every time.

1000 abortions is cheaper in the long run than funding one life long "should have been aborted"... especially if you can negotiate bulk rates.


ya, really woulda saved a lot of money if we'd aborted einstein... or elon musk... or bill gates...

or are you just in favor of killing the kids of the poor (and jewish)?
victor809 Offline
#145 Posted: Thu, Oct 11 2018, 10:19 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
As I stated earlier tail, I've paid for one. I literally gave them money for services. No one asked if she had insurance (there was no ACA at the time so I can't say for sure about the ACA) they simply gave me a cost.
tailgater Offline
#146 Posted: Thu, Oct 11 2018, 10:56 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
Tail.... You find the idea of aborting a healthy unborn child horrific.
So?

I find the idea of a person having a child in this world horrific. Are you going to support my opinion? Somehow I doubt it. Both opinions are of as much value as a clump of aborted cells scraped out of the vacuum machine.... Actually less so... We could use those stem cells for research.

Do I think there is some inequality in the decision making between the woman and the man? Sure. But there's also inequality in the impact of having to feed the parasite for 9mo and the damage to ones body. There's also societal inequalities regarding the "deadbeat" status... So I'm fine with the woman being able to make the abort decision without the man's input. Ideally I'd like both sides to be able to pull the abort plug regardless of what the other side thinks, and make keeping it require both to sign on... But I know no one will agree with me on that.


I qualified my statement.
Gene363 Offline
#147 Posted: Thu, Oct 11 2018, 11:15 AM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,810
Well abortion does pave the way for immigration.

Quote:
Census Bureau published new data that show why the United States will need more immigrants, not fewer, in the coming decades.

Demographers and economists have been warning that the aging baby-boomer population presents a serious challenge to the nation’s finances, as the ratio of seniors to working-age adults—the age-dependency ratio—rises. The reason is straightforward: Social Security and Medicare are largely financed on a pay-as-you-go basis, which means that some of the taxes paid by current workers are transferred to current retirees. If the dependency ratio rises, the financial burden on the working-age population also increases.


Source The New Yorker: https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/why-the-united-states-needs-more-immigrants
tailgater Offline
#148 Posted: Thu, Oct 11 2018, 11:26 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
bgz wrote:
I looked it up, they're not that expensive.


Dude, people beotch about the cost of contraceptives. You think they'll pay for an abortion with complaining?
there is no way that most abortions are paid out of pocket, considering the demographic we're talking about.


tailgater Offline
#149 Posted: Thu, Oct 11 2018, 11:27 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
As I stated earlier tail, I've paid for one. I literally gave them money for services. No one asked if she had insurance (there was no ACA at the time so I can't say for sure about the ACA) they simply gave me a cost.


You shoulda waited till the 3rd trimester.
You know: get your money's worth.
victor809 Offline
#150 Posted: Thu, Oct 11 2018, 11:30 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
They're subsidized by donations tail.
The way planned Parenthood works is services prices vary based on your income. If you're claimed income is x, then services cost y.... Etc etc. People donate to planned Parenthood so that low income people can afford these services (any services from gynecology to birth control to abortion). The abortion side is funded solely through donations.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
5 Pages<12345>
Back to Top