User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 12:45:52 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The list of things that I do support using taxpayer funding for is incredibly short.  This. Pro-choice, against govt. spending on abortion, food for the children, section 8 housing, medicaid etc. To me, this has nothing to do with abortion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 12:46:32 PM EDT
[#2]
I don't support doing dumb, useless things that help the Democrats.
 Maybe next we should propose that grenade launchers be sold in mall vending machines.
 That'll be a big help when whoever is debating Hillary. This is the abortion equivalent of Open Carry Texas. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 12:46:42 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How much tax money is spent on abortions yearly? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
.............. He's right. No he isn't...............a lot of people outside of social conservatives do not approve of taxpayer funded abortions. How much tax money is spent on abortions yearly? I don't know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 12:46:49 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He's right. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't support taxpayer funding for much of anything. But it is clinically retarded to try and pretend this is just about cutting funding for abortion when you should fucking well know by now the kind of outrage it is going to cause. You want to cut funding for abortion? Fine. Where's the bill to cut funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, or eliminating farm subsidies, or reforming Social Security, or cutting foreign aid, or eliminating one of the million other federal money sinks that no one even has heard of? It's pandering to the social conservatives. Nothing more, nothing less. Well that didn't take long. He's right. So in later elections he can say, "I worked to cut taxes & reduce spending". I love how "Worked" has been redefined to mean "Do jack shit." |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 12:47:08 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No taxpayer supported abortions does not mean a ban on abortions. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I was always totally against abortion. I think it is a sad situation when a society kills it's children. I worked with a man who's mother died from getting an illegal abortion. If a woman is desperate enough to go to a butcher and put her own life at risk, then that is an unacceptable situation. It caused me to modify thoughts on it. I would not support a law banning abortions. That said I don't want to help pay for someone to kill their child. No taxpayer supported abortions does not mean a ban on abortions. I know. I still don't want to pay for it. Like others have said, my list of things the government should pay for is extremely short. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 12:47:16 PM EDT
[#6]
I think the only tax payer funded healthcare of any sort should be limited to those that are or have served and their families.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 12:47:31 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't support doing dumb, useless things that help the Democrats.
Maybe next we should propose that grenade launchers be sold in mall vending machines. That'll be a big help when whoever is debating Hillary. This is the abortion equivalent of Open Carry Texas.
Nah, it just reminds people that the democrats would want us to pay for their abortions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 12:48:34 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't know. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: .............. He's right. No he isn't...............a lot of people outside of social conservatives do not approve of taxpayer funded abortions. How much tax money is spent on abortions yearly? I don't know. Then how can you assess the taxpayer angle? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 12:51:48 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then how can you assess the taxpayer angle? Is a single dollar being spent on it? It shouldn't be. Pretty simple. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 12:51:57 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nah, it just reminds people that the democrats would want us to pay for their abortions. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I don't support doing dumb, useless things that help the Democrats. Maybe next we should propose that grenade launchers be sold in mall vending machines. That'll be a big help when whoever is debating Hillary. This is the abortion equivalent of Open Carry Texas. Nah, it just reminds people that the democrats would want us to pay for their abortions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 12:52:59 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It will show once again that the 'tards want you to pay for FUCKING EVERYTHING!! Good for low information voters to be reminded of this TIME AND TIME again. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: .......... Not really. It will show once again that the 'tards want you to pay for FUCKING EVERYTHING!! Good for low information voters to be reminded of this TIME AND TIME again. If that were the intent, you could pick any one of the hundreds of things fox news likes to dredge up every time wasteful government spending comes up and voted to cut some of those. But no, they picked a big divisive issue that the low information voters will interpret as those evil Republicans and their war on women, trying to ban abortion, again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 12:53:52 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
................... Then how can you assess the taxpayer angle? Right off the top of my head Planned Parenthood gets about $1 billion a year from taxpayers and about 50 percent of that goes to performing abortions. Plus there are Obamacare costs that go for it also IIRC, but that is hard to nail down an exact amount. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 12:55:02 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
............... No, it ensures that women vote for whoever the Democrats run. Does congress have the votes to override a veto? If not the it's just playing to the rubes back home Ok, cow tow to the 'tards and low informed voters. I can understand that to a point considering it might be Hillary or the Cherokee. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 12:55:16 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, it ensures that women vote for whoever the Democrats run. Does congress have the votes to override a veto? If not the it's just playing to the rubes back home Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't support doing dumb, useless things that help the Democrats.
Maybe next we should propose that grenade launchers be sold in mall vending machines. That'll be a big help when whoever is debating Hillary. This is the abortion equivalent of Open Carry Texas.
Nah, it just reminds people that the democrats would want us to pay for their abortions. Which women? The ones who are already going to vote for Hillary? Abortion is a small wedge issue. People like you ceding the democrats point is giving it more power than it deserves. It's not a damn war on women, and the majority of the party agrees. Should we agree with background checks to keep "moderates"? I promise abandoning pro-life and pro-gun positions will hurt the Republicans more than the Democrats. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 12:55:37 PM EDT
[#15]
What about a gimmick where you can get a freebie abortion if you let us tie your tubes? Until we can get rid of all the welfare programs , that is.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 12:56:11 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If that were the intent, you could pick any one of the hundreds of things fox news likes to dredge up every time wasteful government spending comes up and voted to cut some of those. But no, they picked a big divisive issue that the low information voters will interpret as those evil Republicans and their war on women, trying to ban abortion, again. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
.......... Not really. It will show once again that the 'tards want you to pay for FUCKING EVERYTHING!! Good for low information voters to be reminded of this TIME AND TIME again. If that were the intent, you could pick any one of the hundreds of things fox news likes to dredge up every time wasteful government spending comes up and voted to cut some of those. But no, they picked a big divisive issue that the low information voters will interpret as those evil Republicans and their war on women, trying to ban abortion, again. Why do we feel the need to pander to the low information voters? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 12:56:20 PM EDT
[#17]
Planned Parenthood gets government money, so we're already paying for abortions by proxy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 12:56:37 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What about a gimmick where you can get a freebie abortion if you let us tie your tubes? Until we can get rid of all the welfare programs , that is. I got trashed for suggesting that once.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 12:57:11 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In the long run, it is probably cheaper for the taxpayer to just pay for the abortion up front when you really think about it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 12:57:30 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What about a gimmick where you can get a freebie abortion if you let us tie your tubes? Until we can get rid of all the welfare programs , that is. I'd agree to it. I'd agree to government funded spaying/neutering by itself, too. THAT has a tangible benefit to society without all the creepy undertones. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 12:57:45 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Planned Parenthood gets government money, so we're already paying for abortions by proxy. I think it about $500 million a year. Not sure though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 1:00:30 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is a single dollar being spent on it? It shouldn't be. Pretty simple. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Then how can you assess the taxpayer angle? Is a single dollar being spent on it? It shouldn't be. Pretty simple. I don't disagree, but that's not the point. The idea that republicans are doing this for fiscal reasons is what is being asserted. The... zeal... with which republicans toss votes in the wood chipper on this matter makes that clear. Now, how much taxpayer money is spent on abortions each year? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 1:00:49 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't support taxpayer funding for much of anything. But it is clinically retarded to try and pretend this is just about cutting funding for abortion when you should fucking well know by now the kind of outrage it is going to cause. You want to cut funding for abortion? Fine. Where's the bill to cut funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, or eliminating farm subsidies, or reforming Social Security, or cutting foreign aid, or eliminating one of the million other federal money sinks that no one even has heard of? It's pandering to the social conservatives. Nothing more, nothing less. eh...sort of like pandering to the proponents of Eugenics on the left....soft racism.....funny...that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 1:01:21 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ever try to adopt a kid in America? It isn't easy. My sister in law and her husband gave up and went to the Philippines. I know others who went to Russia. I can't speak for all of them but in my experience of dealing with them, many of the fostered kids and those in group homes are comprised of kids who didn't have a chance with their dirt-bag parents who are junkies, felons in prison and molesters. Sad but true. States did away with orphanages and placed these kids with foster parents who on some occasions are no better then the people who gave these kids life. I'm not a devout anti-abortion type and I'm far from religious. I just believe many things can be done to prevent the births before killing the baby. And, I don't believe people who are pro-life or don't believe in abortion should have to pay for it via their taxes. There will be unwanted kids no matter what because some people are shit. Some people do right and take them in temporarily. Others would take them in permanently. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I support no taxpayer funded abortion but I do support taxpayer funded birth control and drug testing for benefits. Adoption is the option with "unwanted" pregnancies. We've got many Americans going overseas to adopt when they could do so here. You know I hear this argument all the time. Doesn't explain the overcrowded group homes and government subsidized foster homes full of unwanted kids. Ever try to adopt a kid in America? It isn't easy. My sister in law and her husband gave up and went to the Philippines. I know others who went to Russia. I can't speak for all of them but in my experience of dealing with them, many of the fostered kids and those in group homes are comprised of kids who didn't have a chance with their dirt-bag parents who are junkies, felons in prison and molesters. Sad but true. States did away with orphanages and placed these kids with foster parents who on some occasions are no better then the people who gave these kids life. I'm not a devout anti-abortion type and I'm far from religious. I just believe many things can be done to prevent the births before killing the baby. And, I don't believe people who are pro-life or don't believe in abortion should have to pay for it via their taxes. There will be unwanted kids no matter what because some people are shit. Some people do right and take them in temporarily. Others would take them in permanently. No I haven't attempted to adopt. But if that is the case it sounds like you have identified a problem in need of a solution. Point me in the direction of that legislation and I'll support it. As for the second highlighted part, are you saying people don't want them because their parents were less than desirable? What types of people do you think are aborting their babies? Those babies who people say will become available for adoption if there is no abortion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 1:01:23 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Which women? The ones who are already going to vote for Hillary? Abortion is a small wedge issue. People like you ceding the democrats point is giving it more power than it deserves. It's not a damn war on women, and the majority of the party agrees. Should we agree with background checks to keep "moderates"? I promise abandoning pro-life and pro-gun positions will hurt the Republicans more than the Democrats. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't support doing dumb, useless things that help the Democrats.
Maybe next we should propose that grenade launchers be sold in mall vending machines. That'll be a big help when whoever is debating Hillary. This is the abortion equivalent of Open Carry Texas.
Nah, it just reminds people that the democrats would want us to pay for their abortions. Which women? The ones who are already going to vote for Hillary? Abortion is a small wedge issue. People like you ceding the democrats point is giving it more power than it deserves. It's not a damn war on women, and the majority of the party agrees. Should we agree with background checks to keep "moderates"? I promise abandoning pro-life and pro-gun positions will hurt the Republicans more than the Democrats. Point is any movement on any abortion related bill expends political capital and gives the left ammo for the "war on women" line. If you're going to blow your wad, blow it getting something done. Make the juice worth the squeeze. This is a bill that won't pass that wouldn't do much more than existing laws if it did, and thus is fucking stupid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 1:01:59 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'd agree to it. I'd agree to government funded spaying/neutering by itself, too. THAT has a tangible benefit to society without all the creepy undertones. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: What about a gimmick where you can get a freebie abortion if you let us tie your tubes? Until we can get rid of all the welfare programs , that is. I'd agree to it. I'd agree to government funded spaying/neutering by itself, too. THAT has a tangible benefit to society without all the creepy undertones. Aren't we already in negative population replacement? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 1:04:13 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Which women? The ones who are already going to vote for Hillary? Abortion is a small wedge issue. People like you ceding the democrats point is giving it more power than it deserves. It's not a damn war on women, and the majority of the party agrees. Should we agree with background checks to keep "moderates"? I promise abandoning pro-life and pro-gun positions will hurt the Republicans more than the Democrats. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I don't support doing dumb, useless things that help the Democrats. Maybe next we should propose that grenade launchers be sold in mall vending machines. That'll be a big help when whoever is debating Hillary. This is the abortion equivalent of Open Carry Texas. Nah, it just reminds people that the democrats would want us to pay for their abortions. Which women? The ones who are already going to vote for Hillary? Abortion is a small wedge issue. People like you ceding the democrats point is giving it more power than it deserves. It's not a damn war on women, and the majority of the party agrees. Should we agree with background checks to keep "moderates"? I promise abandoning pro-life and pro-gun positions will hurt the Republicans more than the Democrats. If it's such a great idea why did Republicans immediately abandon it? Where was this sweeping groundswell of support? This was another fuck up like the shut down where the Republican leadership took a frying pan to the head.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 1:04:48 PM EDT
[#28]
I support no taxpayer funding for anything that isn't explicitly stated in the Constitution as a responsibility of government.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 1:05:02 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I got trashed for suggesting that once. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What about a gimmick where you can get a freebie abortion if you let us tie your tubes? Until we can get rid of all the welfare programs , that is. I got trashed for suggesting that once. We could have vans, like the nice folks who do my feral cats for $20 a pop.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 1:05:22 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Aren't we already in negative population replacement? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What about a gimmick where you can get a freebie abortion if you let us tie your tubes? Until we can get rid of all the welfare programs , that is. I'd agree to it. I'd agree to government funded spaying/neutering by itself, too. THAT has a tangible benefit to society without all the creepy undertones. Aren't we already in negative population replacement? Yes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 1:05:27 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think the only tax payer funded healthcare of any sort should be limited to those that are or have served and their families. So all government employees including like, the police? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 1:06:02 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How much tax money is spent on abortions yearly? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
.............. He's right. No he isn't...............a lot of people outside of social conservatives do not approve of taxpayer funded abortions. How much tax money is spent on abortions yearly? really...does it fucking matter?.......this is your argument?.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 1:06:33 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Point is any movement on any abortion related bill expends political capital and gives the left ammo for the "war on women" line. If you're going to blow your wad, blow it getting something done. Make the juice worth the squeeze. This is a bill that won't pass that wouldn't do much more than existing laws if it did, and thus is fucking stupid. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't support doing dumb, useless things that help the Democrats.
Maybe next we should propose that grenade launchers be sold in mall vending machines. That'll be a big help when whoever is debating Hillary. This is the abortion equivalent of Open Carry Texas.
Nah, it just reminds people that the democrats would want us to pay for their abortions. Which women? The ones who are already going to vote for Hillary? Abortion is a small wedge issue. People like you ceding the democrats point is giving it more power than it deserves. It's not a damn war on women, and the majority of the party agrees. Should we agree with background checks to keep "moderates"? I promise abandoning pro-life and pro-gun positions will hurt the Republicans more than the Democrats. Point is any movement on any abortion related bill expends political capital and gives the left ammo for the "war on women" line. If you're going to blow your wad, blow it getting something done. Make the juice worth the squeeze. This is a bill that won't pass that wouldn't do much more than existing laws if it did, and thus is fucking stupid. Politically, it probably would have been wiser for both houses to repeal Obamacare, but that would have gone just as far as this bill. Without a veto-proof majority on any given subject the next two years are going to be a circle jerk of posturing with a heavy dose of primary fever coming up soon. Republicans don't win primaries by knocking down a bill like this. They have no choice. Once someone puts it forth, they have to support it. Failure to do so will have the primary opponent who never had to make the choice rubbing it in their face. There is more to electoral politics than "ZOMG HILLARY 2016!!!!" |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 1:07:09 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We could have vans, like the nice folks who do my feral cats for $20 a pop. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What about a gimmick where you can get a freebie abortion if you let us tie your tubes? Until we can get rid of all the welfare programs , that is. I got trashed for suggesting that once. We could have vans, like the nice folks who do my feral cats for $20 a pop. We could fix 'em, nick the ear, then send 'em out with a coupon for a free 40oz. Doc'll be hackin at reproductive organs from can-see till can't-see and there'll still be a line around the block. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 1:07:11 PM EDT
[#35]
i don't support killing a child no matter who pays for it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 1:07:13 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
............. We could have vans, like the nice folks who do my feral cats for $20 a pop. Find the father and cut him up also!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 1:08:03 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
really...does it fucking matter?.......this is your argument?.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
.............. He's right. No he isn't...............a lot of people outside of social conservatives do not approve of taxpayer funded abortions. How much tax money is spent on abortions yearly? really...does it fucking matter?.......this is your argument?.... Their argument is that the 'tards will use this as proof that we hate women.................that argument DOES have some validity. I cannot deny that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 1:08:22 PM EDT
[#38]
I support NO taxpayer funding for a whole lot of shit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 1:09:37 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
My Rep, Randy Weber, filed this bill: On Thursday, the United States House of Representatives voted on H.R. 7 – No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion. The measure passed by a vote of 242 to 179 and now heads to the Senate. There is another thread going on where some are arguing about outlawing abortion, even though that isn't what was proposed. So please don't argue about that. The question is simply: Do you support this bill for "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion"? Tax dollars should only be spent on infrastructure and common services. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 1:10:01 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why do we feel the need to pander to the low information voters? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If that were the intent, you could pick any one of the hundreds of things fox news likes to dredge up every time wasteful government spending comes up and voted to cut some of those. But no, they picked a big divisive issue that the low information voters will interpret as those evil Republicans and their war on women, trying to ban abortion, again. Why do we feel the need to pander to the low information voters? Because the bases of both parties are comprised of low information voters. On the Republican side, it can be interpreted as "doing something" about abortion. They won't look into it any more deeply than the war on women people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 1:11:40 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I know. I still don't want to pay for it. Like others have said, my list of things the government should pay for is extremely short. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I was always totally against abortion. I think it is a sad situation when a society kills it's children. I worked with a man who's mother died from getting an illegal abortion. If a woman is desperate enough to go to a butcher and put her own life at risk, then that is an unacceptable situation. It caused me to modify thoughts on it. I would not support a law banning abortions. That said I don't want to help pay for someone to kill their child. No taxpayer supported abortions does not mean a ban on abortions. I know. I still don't want to pay for it. Like others have said, my list of things the government should pay for is extremely short. As is mine. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 1:12:52 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Abortion is a loser that plays to Democrats nationally, it's a dog like bitching about gay marriage. The hardcore south/Midwest religious men who want to stamp out abortion can't deliver elections anymore. If it's such a great idea why did Republicans immediately abandon it? Where was this sweeping groundswell of support? This was another fuck up like the shut down where the Republican leadership took a frying pan to the head. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't support doing dumb, useless things that help the Democrats.
Maybe next we should propose that grenade launchers be sold in mall vending machines. That'll be a big help when whoever is debating Hillary. This is the abortion equivalent of Open Carry Texas.
Nah, it just reminds people that the democrats would want us to pay for their abortions. Which women? The ones who are already going to vote for Hillary? Abortion is a small wedge issue. People like you ceding the democrats point is giving it more power than it deserves. It's not a damn war on women, and the majority of the party agrees. Should we agree with background checks to keep "moderates"? I promise abandoning pro-life and pro-gun positions will hurt the Republicans more than the Democrats. If it's such a great idea why did Republicans immediately abandon it? Where was this sweeping groundswell of support? This was another fuck up like the shut down where the Republican leadership took a frying pan to the head. In 2004, people blamed Kerry's support for gay marriage and the Republicans huge stance against it as a driving force behind his loss. Numerically, abortion as it exists now has been trending AGAINST the "pro-choice" movement. Pro-life opinion is dominant among Republicans..."independents" have been nearly perfectly split and also trending slightly pro-life. VIRTUALLY NO ONE uses it as a primary deciding factor during a major, non-primary election. I don't, you don't, most of the people in this thread on either side don't. It doesn't lose Republicans elections. Republicans lost to Obama because Obama the Rockstar card like a genius. He's Mr. Buddy down the block. Next to the nerdy and stiff McCain/Romney crew, he was a shoe in. Mr. buddy b-baller who drink beers with the homies and cares about our jobs vs. old geezers. That's what really does it. Electoral politics is becoming reality TV. No matter the substance of the person, they get fucked for their looks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 1:13:37 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd agree to it. I'd agree to government funded spaying/neutering by itself, too. THAT has a tangible benefit to society without all the creepy undertones. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What about a gimmick where you can get a freebie abortion if you let us tie your tubes? Until we can get rid of all the welfare programs , that is. I'd agree to it. I'd agree to government funded spaying/neutering by itself, too. THAT has a tangible benefit to society without all the creepy undertones. Where are the charities for putting norplants and other long term BC into willing participants? That's something I'd donate to. Just getting folks past their early 20s without kids would do a lot, and would probably reduce demand for govt funded abortions. I'm surprised there's no one giving teens back alley norplants without parent consent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 1:14:29 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But it means more future Democrats. They were getting nipped in the bud. Steven Pinker has argued against this premise very persuasively. Basically, legalized, easy, cheap abortion lower the inhibitions toward unprotected unmarried sex among those with poor decision making tendencies more than those with good decision making skills. Once pregnant, the less future oriented tend to focus on the idea of a cute baby, and decide not to have an abortion after all. The knocked-up-but-future-oriented women tend to follow through on the abortion with greater statistical regularity. The difference in abortion rates and birth rates is mostly attributable to the fact that the lower class D voters tend to make the same bad decisions over and over and over. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 1:14:48 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Which women? The ones who are already going to vote for Hillary? Abortion is a small wedge issue. People like you ceding the democrats point is giving it more power than it deserves. It's not a damn war on women, and the majority of the party agrees. Should we agree with background checks to keep "moderates"? I promise abandoning pro-life and pro-gun positions will hurt the Republicans more than the Democrats. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't support doing dumb, useless things that help the Democrats.
Maybe next we should propose that grenade launchers be sold in mall vending machines. That'll be a big help when whoever is debating Hillary. This is the abortion equivalent of Open Carry Texas.
Nah, it just reminds people that the democrats would want us to pay for their abortions. Which women? The ones who are already going to vote for Hillary? Abortion is a small wedge issue. People like you ceding the democrats point is giving it more power than it deserves. It's not a damn war on women, and the majority of the party agrees. Should we agree with background checks to keep "moderates"? I promise abandoning pro-life and pro-gun positions will hurt the Republicans more than the Democrats. To the part in red  . EVERYBODY has an opinion on abortion. Hell just look at this website and all the mudslinging every one of these threads bring up.
To the part in blue that is completely different. You are talking about making something illegal that is a current legal activity. A better analogy for this topic would be should we be using taxpayer funds to conduct background checks? The answer is we already do. Its called NICS. Like it or not, we aren't getting rid of NICS for FFL transactions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 1:15:22 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What about a gimmick where you can get a freebie abortion if you let us tie your tubes? Until we can get rid of all the welfare programs , that is. I can support that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 1:15:50 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Where are the charities for putting norplants and other long term BC into willing participants? That's something I'd donate to. Just getting folks past their early 20s without kids would do a lot, and would probably reduce demand for govt funded abortions. I'm surprised there's no one giving teens back alley norplants without parent consent. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What about a gimmick where you can get a freebie abortion if you let us tie your tubes? Until we can get rid of all the welfare programs , that is. I'd agree to it. I'd agree to government funded spaying/neutering by itself, too. THAT has a tangible benefit to society without all the creepy undertones. Where are the charities for putting norplants and other long term BC into willing participants? That's something I'd donate to. Just getting folks past their early 20s without kids would do a lot, and would probably reduce demand for govt funded abortions. I'm surprised there's no one giving teens back alley norplants without parent consent. I think that is also a Planned Parenthood gig.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 1:15:54 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why do we feel the need to pander to the low information voters? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
.......... Not really. It will show once again that the 'tards want you to pay for FUCKING EVERYTHING!! Good for low information voters to be reminded of this TIME AND TIME again. If that were the intent, you could pick any one of the hundreds of things fox news likes to dredge up every time wasteful government spending comes up and voted to cut some of those. But no, they picked a big divisive issue that the low information voters will interpret as those evil Republicans and their war on women, trying to ban abortion, again. Why do we feel the need to pander to the low information voters? Obama. Twice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 1:16:16 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So all government employees including like the police? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I think the only tax payer funded healthcare of any sort should be limited to those that are or have served and their families. So all government employees including like the police? There is nothing wrong with providing compensation and benefits to government employees. A family health plan is common place in the private sector and as long as it is valued similarly, I have issues with police, firemen or any other gov workers having a health plan. However, the gov should not provide any money to individuals or businesses that is not in exchange for goods or services. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 1:17:53 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fourth post nails it! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
In the long run, it is probably cheaper for the taxpayer to just pay for the abortion up front when you really think about it. Fourth post nails it! This is where I stand. It is a much cheaper alternative. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
