The abortion issue: one solution

PostmodernProphet said:
well, du'h......you weren't aware of that before?.....




/shrugs.....didn't your mommy ever teach you?.....just because all your friends want to throw their unborn children over a cliff, does that mean YOU ought to?......



your proposal removes nothing....it adds something....federal funding to help people throw unborn children over the cliff.....now I know you've been dying to participate in the killing of unborn children....it isn't enough for you to kill your own.....you want to contribute money to the killing of even more......

but you know, not only do I think you shouldn't be allowed to use tax money to kill unborn children, I'm even opposed to you making contributions to places like Planned Unparenthood......I don't think private money should be used to kill children either.....
Click to expand...

:palm: Okay, one more time for the cheap seats. If you don't get it this time, ask your momma or daddy or some adult you trust to explain it to you:


1. An OPTION NOT to participate in a system THAT ALREADY EXISTS does not "ADD" to anything.

2. If your state has public hospitals that facilitate abortion, you will have the option NOT to have your tax dollars fund that. If your state receives federal funding for infrastructure and such for public hospitals that facilitate abortion, you will have the option NOT to have your tax dollars fund that.

3. This proposal in no way impedes your personal ability to protests, advocate or Congressional support/campaign against abortion.

4. This proposal basically grants the anti-abortion point of unwilling financial support of abortion to be ended.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Options have been put in and taken out of the State and Federal tax forms for years...so your assertion makes no sense, unless you are advocating for NO federal taxes. That is a different argument.

Again, my proposal is an OPTION, which means that if your State has public hospitals that are facilitating abortions, you could do the tax table and have your taxes for such exempted. If your state receives federal funds for infrastructure, and said hospitals receive part of that funding, you could do the tax table and have your taxes for such exempted.

Again, my proposal DOES NOT initiate funding for abortion on either State or Federal level.....it merely gives YOU the option to remove yourself from the equation financially where applicable, as has been a point of contention with anti-abortion folks for years.
Click to expand...
My state has already made it part of the constitution that none of our tax dollars can go towards that, I previously mentioned it.

If you want your money to go to abortions you have every right to donate it. Give up the quest to fund it from public funds using bookkeeping gimmickry. It's beneath your intelligence level to keep up this pretense.
 
Man, abortion has to be the most over debated non-issue in message board history. I'll never understand why rightwing dudes get so stressed out and dramatic about a woman's uterus. What a bunch of drama queens.

My position is that I don't have a position. If you don't have a uterus, you aren't allowed to have a position, or be a drama queen about it. It's a personal choice for women, and I sure as shit wouldn't want a legislature of 90% females passing laws and restriction on my reproductive organs.

If you want to reduce abortion and reduce unintended pregnancies, just do what most western european countries do. Just be like france. Provide access to health care - which includes birth control, morning-after pills, and reproductive health care- for every single citizen. Otherwise, I'll assume this shit really isn't about "saving the children" or preventing unwanted pregnancies. It's about controlling women, near as I can tell.
 
Cypress said:
Man, abortion has to be the most over debated non-issue in message board history. I'll never understand why rightwing dudes get so stressed out and dramatic about a woman's uterus. What a bunch of drama queens.

My position is that I don't have a position. If you don't have a uterus, you aren't allowed to have a position, or be a drama queen about it. It's a personal choice for women, and I sure as shit wouldn't want a legislature of 90% females passing laws and restriction on my reproductive organs.

If you want to reduce abortion and reduce unintended pregnancies, just do what most western european countries do. Just be like france. Provide access to health care - which includes birth control, morning-after pills, and reproductive health care- for every single citizen. Otherwise, I'll assume this shit really isn't about "saving the children" or preventing unwanted pregnancies. It's about controlling women, near as I can tell.
Click to expand...


Right on! It's got absolutely nothing to do with "saving the children".

This is what the Repubs want to vote against.
(Excerpt)Starting this year, insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with preexisting conditions. (End)
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a...health_insurance_reform_in_fairfax_va/?page=6

Forcing a woman to bear a child she does not want and then having that ill child denied health insurance coverage resulting in financial disaster for the woman. Can’t you just feel the love she'll have for her child?

They don't give a damn about children. Anti-abortion legislation was never about the child's welfare. Never.
 
Topspin said:
There is a law that allows it for woman, and it says fuck you to Jesus freaks. That's not going to change cartoon believer.
Click to expand...

sure it is, babykiller....as more and more people realize what a low life you and the other abortionists are this despicable practice will end and everyone will shudder to think how many helpless babies died so you could profit.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
sure it is, babykiller....as more and more people realize what a low life you and the other abortionists are this despicable practice will end and everyone will shudder to think how many helpless babies died so you could profit.....
Click to expand...

You racist fucks didn't want blacks and woman to vote either. 2 more issues you fundamental christian tie around republicans necks like an anchor. The fact that you pussies like to fight wars with other peoples kids make you the murder.
 
Southern Man said:
I earlier addressed your OP directly and destroyed your argument so you ignored me. Now you bring up abortion again. If you like you can try again:
Click to expand...

Evidently, you can't produce the post on this thread where you logically and factually refuted and/or disproved the opening post. So like a stubborn little child, you'll just repeat your blathering nonsense. Carry on.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Options have been put in and taken out of the State and Federal tax forms for years...so your assertion makes no sense, unless you are advocating for NO federal taxes. That is a different argument.

Again, my proposal is an OPTION, which means that if your State has public hospitals that are facilitating abortions, you could do the tax table and have your taxes for such exempted. If your state receives federal funds for infrastructure, and said hospitals receive part of that funding, you could do the tax table and have your taxes for such exempted.

Again, my proposal DOES NOT initiate funding for abortion on either State or Federal level.....it merely gives YOU the option to remove yourself from the equation financially where applicable, as has been a point of contention with anti-abortion folks for years.
Click to expand...

Damocles said:
My state has already made it part of the constitution that none of our tax dollars can go towards that, I previously mentioned it. I didn't read that...but my proposal would go to States that do not have what you do.

If you want your money to go to abortions you have every right to donate it. Give up the quest to fund it from public funds using bookkeeping gimmickry. It's beneath your intelligence level to keep up this pretense.
Click to expand...

:palm: Pay attention mastermind, your State is NOT the blue print for the other states that allow abortions. And if it was, then all the anti-abortion folks who have screamed bloody murder about their tax dollars and abortion would be esentially talking out of their asses.

Again, if abortion is LEGAL, and funding can be provided by some states via tax dollars (or in special circumstances, via federal funds to hospitals as the law stipulates), then my OPTION would NOT contribute to a system that already exists, since the option is to be EXEMPT. :palm: Got that, bunky?
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Evidently, you can't produce the post on this thread where you logically and factually refuted and/or disproved the opening post. So like a stubborn little child, you'll just repeat your blathering nonsense. Carry on.
Click to expand...

Southern Man said:
Post 27.
Click to expand...

Post #31 and #38
All you're doing is just repeating yourself without honestly acknowledging logic, answering questions or debating the issue.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Post #31 and #38
All you're doing is just repeating yourself without honestly acknowledging logic, answering questions or debating the issue.
Click to expand...
All you've done in those posts is deem that my argument is somehow dishonest yet offer no basis. You accept the fact that folks reject abortion on moral grounds, but refuse to accept the fact that folks reject usurpation of the Constitution on moral grounds. Your OP argument thus fails.

Admit it and move on, Libbie.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Post #31 and #38
All you're doing is just repeating yourself without honestly acknowledging logic, answering questions or debating the issue.
Click to expand...

Southern Man said:
All you've done in those posts is deem that my argument is somehow dishonest yet offer no basis. You accept the fact that folks reject abortion on moral grounds, but refuse to accept the fact that folks reject usurpation of the Constitution on moral grounds. Your OP argument thus fails.

Admit it and move on, Libbie.
Click to expand...

:palm: Your problem is that you think your denial of, or inability to fathom a response equates with your intial assertions being correct.

Here's what you wrote:

You see, I have a moral problem with funding all Federal programs that aren't specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

My response: Oh spare me that old, lame ass right wing crap! Federal regulations for clean drinking water, healthy food, highways, air travel, immuniztions, hospital/doctor standards of treatment, train travel, etc. Since you use one or more of these on a regular basis, that makes you a liar and a hypocrit!

As any rational adult with the high school GED and an understanding of critical thinking would agree, it is YOU who failed to substantiate your assertion, thus your entire premise falls apart.
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
:palm: Your problem is that you think your denial of, or inability to fathom a response equates with your intial assertions being correct.

Here's what you wrote:

You see, I have a moral problem with funding all Federal programs that aren't specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

My response: Oh spare me that old, lame ass right wing crap! Federal regulations for clean drinking water, healthy food, highways, air travel, immuniztions, hospital/doctor standards of treatment, train travel, etc. Since you use one or more of these on a regular basis, that makes you a liar and a hypocrit!

As any rational adult with the high school GED and an understanding of critical thinking would agree, it is YOU who failed to substantiate your assertion, thus your entire premise falls apart.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily agree that all that crap is best served by use of the federal government. That being said, if a super majority believes that stuff is worth regulating/ funding by the feds, then the Amendment process should be used, not usurpation of the Constitution, which again, I find to be immoral; the reason being that many thousands shed blood and treasure in an oath to protect it. The end does not justify the means.

Hence your argument in the OP fails.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top