Mike Pence Breaks Senate Tie To Allow States To Defund Planned Parenthood
111 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Tone Float;52037284]yes?
If there were a standalone clinic that only did abortions, [I]only[/I], you wouldn't get to hide behind [I]all the other shit they do[/I] as a reason for why the large fraction of the country that thinks abortion is abhorrent should have to finance it, and it wouldn't be financed. Alas, there is a lot of other shit that they do, so you do have something to hide behind and declare those people who think abortion is abhorrent to be waging a war on women and mammograms and shit!
I don't think that's a very good reason.[/QUOTE]
Because they are. They are absolutely declaring war on women.
There is literally no justification for defunding important healthcare for women in the United States, along with other services that Planned Parenthood provide, because of the abortions they do [I]THAT IS NOT EVEN FUNDED BY THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER![/I] Their only justification is their ideology that ~a large fraction of the country~ thinks is bullshit - so why should the rest of the country have to suffer?
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52037338]Because they are. They are absolutely declaring war on women.
There is literally no justification for defunding important healthcare for women in the United States, along with other services that Planned Parenthood provide, because of the abortions they do [B]THAT IS NOT EVEN FUNDED BY THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER![/B] Their only justification is their ideology that ~a large fraction of the country~ thinks is bullshit - so why should the rest of the country have to suffer?[/QUOTE]
"Is this meaningful in any way? Any more than checking the serial number on the $5 bill Bob buys his apples/heroin with to see if you "funded" his apples/heroin by giving him a $5 bill?"
"Is this meaningful in any way? Any more than checking the serial number on the $5 bill Bob buys his apples/heroin with to see if you "funded" his apples/heroin by giving him a $5 bill?"
"Is this meaningful in any way? Any more than checking the serial number on the $5 bill Bob buys his apples/heroin with to see if you "funded" his apples/heroin by giving him a $5 bill?"
Repeating the same nonsense doesn't make your argument any stronger.
[editline]31st March 2017[/editline]
Or make any more sense, for that matter.
I don't really care what bob does with his 5 dollars, it's not my money anymore.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52037369]I don't really care what bob does with his 5 dollars, it's not my money anymore.[/QUOTE]
"I don't care, it's not my money anymore" isn't a really convincing argument against an allegation of misspent tax dollars
I still don't understand why you're comparing abortion to heroin.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52037531]If we restricted tax payer money based on dumb-ass opinions, our government wouldn't exist.[/QUOTE]
Everyone has a say in where the tax money goes. That doesn't go out the window when we start talking about abortion, you can't invalidate anyone's contribution to that by calling their opinions dumb-ass.
[QUOTE=Tone Float;52037710]"I don't care, it's not my money anymore" isn't a really convincing argument against an allegation of misspent tax dollars[/QUOTE]
But they haven't been mispent, at least not on abortion.
[QUOTE=Pascall;52037714]I still don't understand why you're comparing abortion to heroin.[/QUOTE]
If the magnitude of the offense of my comparison served to somehow make it nonsensical (???) then I changed it to a comparison of abortions to apples, and then abortions to, literally, abortions. Maybe you can make sense of that.
"Planned Parenthood has 50,000,000 dollars. I give Planned Parenthood 50,000,000 dollars more. Planned Parenthood then spends 50,000,000 dollars on abortions. Did I pay for the abortions?"
[editline]31st March 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52037719]But they haven't been mispent, at least not on abortion.[/QUOTE]
Every dollar that doesn't have to go to a mammogram is a dollar that can go to abortions. Your "different accounts" aren't very convincing.
[QUOTE=Tone Float;52037284]yes?
If there were a standalone clinic that only did abortions, [I]only[/I], you wouldn't get to hide behind [I]all the other shit they do[/I] as a reason for why the large fraction of the country that thinks abortion is abhorrent should have to finance it, and it wouldn't be financed. Alas, there is a lot of other shit that they do, so you do have something to hide behind and declare those people who think abortion is abhorrent to be waging a war on women and mammograms and shit!
I don't think that's a very good reason.[/QUOTE]
But there are plenty of good reasons why a pregnancy can be terminated. Humanitarian ones, like from incest or rape, actual medical ones, like eclampsia, unsurvivable birth defects, cancer, autoimmune disorders, etc.
Also, dont forget contraceptive failure; a condom will fail one in every five uses unless combined with a spermicide, ditto for even permanent methods like a vasectomy or tubectomy thanks to spontaneous recanalization or having sex during the abstinence period after said procedures.
And what about unplanned pregnancies then? That's another can of worms.
[QUOTE=Tone Float;52037728]
Every dollar that doesn't have to go to a mammogram is a dollar that can go to abortions. Your "different accounts" aren't very convincing.[/QUOTE]
But they don't go to abortions? that's not how it works, if a woman doesn't have a mammogram on monday that mammogram money will be available to another woman on thursday.
[QUOTE=Tone Float;52037728]If the magnitude of the offense of my comparison served to somehow make it nonsensical (???) then I changed it to a comparison of abortions to apples, and then abortions to, literally, abortions. Maybe you can make sense of that.
"Planned Parenthood has 50,000,000 dollars. I give Planned Parenthood 50,000,000 dollars more. Planned Parenthood then spends 50,000,000 dollars on abortions. Did I pay for the abortions?"
[editline]31st March 2017[/editline]
Every dollar that doesn't have to go to a mammogram is a dollar that can go to abortions. Your "different accounts" aren't very convincing.[/QUOTE]
Maybe? But in order to use this analogy, you're making the implication that abortion is inherently a negative procedure when it's not. So I can't reasonably answer your question in the way that you want it to be answered because I see abortion as an important and crucial medical service that should be offered to anyone who needs it because of the risk that a pregnancy poses to them.
Your comparison will never make any sense to someone who does not see abortion as a negative service that PP provides.
[QUOTE=Pascall;52037746]Maybe? But in order to use this analogy, you're making the implication that abortion is inherently a negative procedure when it's not. So I can't reasonably answer your question in the way that you want it to be answered because I see abortion as an important and crucial medical service that should be offered to anyone who needs it because of the risk that a pregnancy poses to them.
Your comparison will never make any sense to someone who does not see abortion as a negative service that PP provides.[/QUOTE]
Bob has five dollars.
I give Bob five more dollars.
Bob then spends five dollars on a bouquet of roses.
Did I pay for Bob's roses?
[editline]31st March 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;52037739]But there are plenty of good reasons why a pregnancy can be terminated. Humanitarian ones, like from incest or rape, actual medical ones, like eclampsia, unsurvivable birth defects, cancer, autoimmune disorders, etc.
Also, dont forget contraceptive failure; a condom will fail one in every five uses unless combined with a spermicide, ditto for even permanent methods like a vasectomy or tubectomy thanks to spontaneous recanalization or having sex during the abstinence period after said procedures.
And what about unplanned pregnancies then? That's another can of worms.[/QUOTE]
Okay, so nobody can wrap their head around how pro-choice I am:
If a baby is born and nobody wants it it should literally be permissible to kill the baby quickly and painlessly, because the ideal population of the world does not increase by one every time a baby is born, and because the value of a baby lies in the existence of a mother that cares about it.
[QUOTE=Tone Float;52037755]Bob has five dollars.
I give Bob five more dollars.
Bob then spends five dollars on a bouquet of roses.
Did I pay for Bob's roses?[/QUOTE]
Again, your comparison doesn't matter.
Maybe you paid for Bob's roses and maybe you didn't, but the fact is, you won't be able to discern whether or not you did. But "Bob's Roses" are not abortions and you're not convincing anyone by using these increasingly silly comparisons.
[editline]31st March 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Tone Float;52037755]
Okay, so nobody can wrap their head around how pro-choice I am:
If a baby is born and nobody wants it it should literally be permissible to kill the baby quickly and painlessly, because the ideal population of the world does not increase by one every time a baby is born, and because the value of a baby lies in the existence of a mother that cares about it.[/QUOTE]
What a backwards way of being "pro-choice", why have the baby go through birth at all if you're just gonna kill it???? It's faster, easier, and less traumatic to both baby and mother to abort the baby before the process of birth.
[QUOTE=Pascall;52037766]Again, your comparison doesn't matter.
Maybe you paid for Bob's roses and maybe you didn't, but the fact is, you won't be able to discern whether or not you did. But "Bob's Roses" are not abortions and you're not convincing anyone by using these increasingly silly comparisons.[/QUOTE]
So I take it you agree that giving money to a corporation and telling them to use it on [I]everything but abortions[/I] is ineffective? Because you won't be able to discern whether or not you paid for the abortions?
[editline]31st March 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Pascall;52037766]Again, your comparison doesn't matter.
Maybe you paid for Bob's roses and maybe you didn't, but the fact is, you won't be able to discern whether or not you did. But "Bob's Roses" are not abortions and you're not convincing anyone by using these increasingly silly comparisons.
[editline]31st March 2017[/editline]
What a backwards way of being "pro-choice", why have the baby go through birth at all if you're just gonna kill it???? It's faster, easier, and less traumatic to both baby and mother to abort the baby before the process of birth.[/QUOTE]
No, please, abort the baby while it's a fetus. Just don't feel any inclination not to abort it once it's born. Nobody wants that shit.
[editline]31st March 2017[/editline]
I simply don't think anybody should be required to pay for any of this.
[QUOTE=Tone Float;52037755]Bob has five dollars.
I give Bob five more dollars.
Bob then spends five dollars on a bouquet of roses.
Did I pay for Bob's roses?
[editline]31st March 2017[/editline]
Okay, so nobody can wrap their head around how pro-choice I am:
If a baby is born and nobody wants it it should literally be permissible to kill the baby quickly and painlessly, because the ideal population of the world does not increase by one every time a baby is born, and because the value of a baby lies in the existence of a mother that cares about it.[/QUOTE]
jesus christ dude, you're advocating literal infanticide here.
Why not, then, just end the pregnancy before development of fetal consciousness? would that not be a more moral thing to do than to allow a baby to be born and then kill it?
The thing is, I don't care if I have to pay for abortions or not lol. That's the point.
[QUOTE=Pascall;52037800]The thing is, I don't care if I have to pay for abortions or not lol. That's the point.[/QUOTE]
Yet, others do, and you don't get to say they're waging a war on mammograms for it.
[editline]31st March 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;52037787]jesus christ dude, you're advocating literal infanticide here.
Why not, then, just end the pregnancy before development of fetal consciousness? would that not be a more moral thing to do than to allow a baby to be born and then kill it?[/QUOTE]
I advocate both.
An unloved child is of negative value to the world. Else, everyone who is not currently procreating is literally in the wrong for not currently procreating.
If you would not create, then you must destroy.
[QUOTE=Tone Float;52037804]Yet, others do, and you don't get to say they're waging a war on mammograms for it.[/QUOTE]
Wh- Waging war on mammograms? What?
For anyone who is a proponent of sexual and reproductive health and education regarding it, PP provides an unimaginably crucial service in this aspect. INCLUDING its offering of abortions which can prevent traumatic births, the deaths of both infant AND mother, and risks involved with pregnancy in an individual who is not mentally or physically capable of carrying an infant to term without suffering for it. It's highly unfair to believe that just because people get abortions (which, isn't even all that common, especially with MORE sexual education and reproductive help) that we shouldn't fund the program in its entirety.
[editline]31st March 2017[/editline]
Funding PP will actually lead us down the road to less abortions, I imagine.
[QUOTE=Pascall;52037831]Wh- Waging war on mammograms? What?
For anyone who is a proponent of sexual and reproductive health and education regarding it, PP provides an unimaginably crucial service in this aspect. INCLUDING its offering of abortions which can prevent traumatic births, the deaths of both infant AND mother, and risks involved with pregnancy in an individual who is not mentally or physically capable of carrying an infant to term without suffering for it. It's highly unfair to believe that just because people get abortions (which, isn't even all that common, especially with MORE sexual education and reproductive help) that we shouldn't fund the program in its entirety.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52033219]Well more than that. Abortions account for a fraction of a percent of the work that PP does, and we're not publicly funded either way. This is an attack on basic reproductive health services.[/QUOTE]
Close enough.
It is unfortunate that the same corporation assists in such a polarizing procedure (abortion) in addition to far less polarizing procedures. What can be done?
[QUOTE=Tone Float;52037777]So I take it you agree that giving money to a corporation and telling them to use it on [I]everything but abortions[/I] is ineffective? Because you won't be able to discern whether or not you paid for the abortions?
[/QUOTE]
You know that we have a whole [URL="https://www.hrsa.gov/index.html"]Federal administration[/URL] devoted to making sure federal grants related to healthcare are used correctly right?
Few organizations are retarded enough to risk funding by trying to skirt federal regulations. Just because you personally aren't familiar with the processes involved in ensuring money ends up in the places it should doesn't mean tracking it is impossible.
I saw Mike Pence in the title and was hoping the next words would be 'Resigns as Vice President'. We can all hope.
[QUOTE=Tone Float;52037851]Close enough.
It is unfortunate that the same corporation assists in such a polarizing procedure (abortion) in addition to far less polarizing procedures. What can be done?[/QUOTE]
people shouldn't tell other people to do with their own bodies
[QUOTE=Tone Float;52037804]
I advocate both.
An unloved child is of negative value to the world. Else, everyone who is not currently procreating is literally in the wrong for not currently procreating.
If you would not create, then you must destroy.[/QUOTE]
What the fuck is this?
God forbid we fund reproductive health services that give people access to more information and quality health care. You know why Planned Parenthood is named what it is, right? Maybe because people armed with reproductive education and health care services are more likely to make better sexual decisions?
Even your phrase is contradictory to your argument. "If you would not create, then you must destroy." Why would you wait until birth to terminate in any case, especially since for some women the act of childbirth poses a very serious health risk?
[QUOTE=Protocol7;52037876]What the fuck is this?
God forbid we fund reproductive health services that give people access to more information and quality health care. You know why Planned Parenthood is named what it is, right? Maybe because people armed with reproductive education and health care services are more likely to make better sexual decisions?
Even your phrase is contradictory to your argument. "If you would not create, then you must destroy." Why would you wait until birth to terminate in any case, especially since for some women the act of childbirth poses a very serious health risk?[/QUOTE]
"No, please, abort the baby while it's a fetus. Just don't feel any inclination not to abort it once it's born. Nobody wants that shit."
I only posted that because nobody could wrap their head around the notion that one could be both pro-choice and think abortion should not be publicly funded. Calm down.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52037892]Well those others may just have to get over the fact their tax money goes to the greater good, not their self-centered opinions.[/QUOTE]
Okay, please start telling them that you argument is now "gtfover it" and no longer "you monster! you're waging a war on basic reproductive health services!"
[QUOTE=Tone Float;52037887]"No, please, abort the baby while it's a fetus. Just don't feel any inclination not to abort it once it's born. Nobody wants that shit."
I only posted that because nobody could wrap their head around the notion that one could be both pro-choice and think abortion should not be publicly funded. Calm down.[/QUOTE]
You dont seem to understand you are compromising reproductive health by not having public funding for necessary abortions. This just increases the same back alley shit people who can't afford otherwise inflated rates to go for, and assuming they go through a pregnancy they're going to abandon the baby at a foster care centre and the tender mercies of the foster system.
Before Roe v. Wade, deaths due to back alley abortions were over 5,000 people a year. Think of this.
[QUOTE=Tone Float;52037887]"No, please, abort the baby while it's a fetus. Just don't feel any inclination not to abort it once it's born. Nobody wants that shit."
I only posted that because nobody could wrap their head around the notion that one could be both pro-choice and think abortion should not be publicly funded. Calm down.[/QUOTE]
Maybe nobody can wrap their head around that notion because that notion would deny damn near half of the U.S. rights to do whatever they wish with their own body.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52037892]Well those others may just have to get over the fact their tax money goes to the greater good, not their self-centered opinions.
If one person thinks we shouldn't have money go to war, does that mean no money can ever go to war?
I really can't understand what you're trying to say, try explaining it without using analogies. Analogies are shit.[/QUOTE]
Analogies are perfectly fine if your opponent isn't inclined to cry nonsense whenever the analogy doesn't work in their favor. I'll just spam what I've been saying for a while, maybe you'll get the hang of it by the fourth iteration:
both pro-choice and think abortion should not be publicly funded
both pro-choice and think abortion should not be publicly funded
both pro-choice and think abortion should not be publicly funded
both pro-choice and think abortion should not be publicly funded
both pro-choice and think abortion should not be publicly funded
both pro-choice and think abortion should not be publicly funded
both pro-choice and think abortion should not be publicly funded
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shit Posting" - UncleJimmema))[/highlight]
[highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Alt of Elecbullet - Using alt to skirt around last chance" - Reagy))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52037927]So you want people to have a right to choose, but have no proper access to execute that right?
Sounds like an oxymoron.[/QUOTE]
It's not the government's place to pay for it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.