Democrat party platform: Favors taxpayer-funded abortion

[alzan]

I think any rational person sees a significant difference between a spontaneous abortion (more commonly called a miscarriage) and an induced abortion. Basically you are abusing the English language to try and make them look the same.

If we started calling deaths from cancer "spontaneous murders" it would not then make it okay to shoot someone in the head.

If the end result is a potential life destroyed there is no difference. It's funny, objection to abortion mostly comes from the religious tight/pro-birth faction. They're also the group which seems the most incredulous when hit with the reality that getting pregnant really isn't all that easy. Having to see man's creator as less than perfect seems to be a hard knock as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condom

Clearly you are wrong. In fact if you start having sex at say 20, by age 30 you will have somewhere between a 20%-150% chance of a woman extorting you for money.

I started at age 16, not one pregnancy. Are those numbers corrected for factors such as low quality condoms, condoms that are old and brittle, etc.?

If you think that the chance of a woman extorting you for money is bad, think of how greater the chances are that a man will have extorted you for money by age 30.

 

[nehalem256]

If the end result is a potential life destroyed there is no difference. It's funny, objection to abortion mostly comes from the religious tight/pro-birth faction. They're also the group which seems the most incredulous when hit with the reality that getting pregnant really isn't all that easy. Having to see man's creator as less than perfect seems to be a hard knock as well.

There is a massive difference, unless you are arguing that shooting someone in the head is no different than that person dying of cancer?

I started at age 16, not one pregnancy. Are those numbers corrected for factors such as low quality condoms, condoms that are old and brittle, etc.?

If you think that the chance of a woman extorting you for money is bad, think of how greater the chances are that a man will have extorted you for money by age 30.

I would assume that the 2%/year means good condoms, and the 15%/year includes using bad condoms.

And please explain how the chances of a man extorting money from me are greater?

 

[TheDev]

What is it with you Repubs and abortion? Give it a rest. No one cares.

 

[Jadow]

What is it with you Repubs and abortion? Give it a rest. No one cares.

some people think killing innocent life is wrong. crazy motherfuckers.

 

[umbrella39]

 

[etrigan420]

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say, but it's been the Dems pushing this stuff.

Oh how soon we forget.

Since the primary season the Repub leaders and strategists have been trying to keep the focus on jobs and the economy. Have some already forgot the angst Santorum caused Repub strategists and leaders with his constant harping on the social issues in the debates?

Have some forgotten the outcry from when the Dems created the "war on women" issue to deflect from the economy and jobs? Why is Sandra Fluke speaking at the DNC?

You think it merely coincidental Obama just recently 'evolved' on his position to support gay marriage?

Somebody isn't paying attention.

Fern

If that how you see it, then there certainly *has* been someone not paying attention.

The Dems created the "war on women"? Puhleeze.

 

[Jhhnn]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condom

Clearly you are wrong. In fact if you start having sex at say 20, by age 30 you will have somewhere between a 20%-150% chance of a woman extorting you for money.

Meaning you will be forced to support your own children. The Horror!

 

[Geosurface]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...ndorses-taxpayer-funded-abortions_651589.html



This may be a repost.

I guess destroying one's own children with legal sanction isn't sufficient. Now I and other taxpayers will have to pay for it.

I used to have some reservations about abortion, then we hit 7 billion people worldwide. Most of them worthless, violent idiots with heads full of superstitious nonsense, sexist nonsense, and who can't keep it in their pants.

So, now I have come to think abortion is pretty fucking awesome. We need a hell of a lot more of it. I'll gladly pay tax money toward it. Can we please get taxpayer-funded sterilizations too?

I'm not joking.

 

[ShawnD1]

Funny that the war on women is really the war on abortion. But I can see how you could confuse the 2.

They also try to make most forms of birth control illegal.
"life begins at conception"

I hate women too, but even I think that goes too far. The republicans want to return to the days when women were seen as mindless baby machines with no other purpose. With no birth control, women are stuck in the 1940s again. Every woman has 5+ children, no hope for a career, and completely relies on her husband for money. Having no career and lots of kids also makes it incredibly hard to leave an abusive relationship. This might be a complete shocker to you, but societies with high birth rates tend to treat women like garbage, and that's exactly what the republicans are shooting for.

On a larger scale, one could argue that republicans are waging a war on humanity itself. Having a few people with lots of resources leads to prosperity, such as Saudi Arabia having lots of oil, or 2 lower class people having only 1 child to care for. Republicans look at the same situation and throw logic out the window. USA has 311 million people? That's not enough. We need more. Lots more. We should get the population up there to rival India and China because we've seen how well that works in those countries. Let's ban most forms of birth control, ban abortion, and go back to everyone having 5+ children. Such rampant population growth might lead to "hobbit homes" but that's a small price to pay if it means beating those stupid democrats who want us to live in hobbit homes!

So, now I have come to think abortion is pretty fucking awesome. We need a hell of a lot more of it. I'll gladly pay tax money toward it. Can we please get taxpayer-funded sterilizations too?

I'm not joking.

I suggested this as well since I think it might actually save money. Suppose men and women would each be paid $10,000 tax-free to receive irreversible sterilization. Who would sign up for it? Crackheads who think 10k is a lot of money. Their future children would be a drain on society anyway, so paying 10k up front would prevent a much larger problem from happening.

 

[nehalem256]

If that how you see it, then there certainly *has* been someone not paying attention.

The Dems created the "war on women"? Puhleeze.

Yes they did. They created it when Republicans stopped funding special health clinics for women. Apparently treating men and women as equals is a war on women.

Meaning you will be forced to support your own children. The Horror!

You are on record as saying women should be able to abandon their children after birth.

 

[nehalem256]

They also try to make most forms of birth control illegal.
"life begins at conception"

Republicans dont want to ban BC.

I hate women too, but even I think that goes too far. The republicans want to return to the days when women were seen as mindless baby machines with no other purpose. With no birth control, women are stuck in the 1940s again. Every woman has 5+ children, no hope for a career, and completely relies on her husband for money. Having no career and lots of kids also makes it incredibly hard to leave an abusive relationship. This might be a complete shocker to you, but societies with high birth rates tend to treat women like garbage, and that's exactly what the republicans are shooting for.

As opposed to the world that Democrats want where the government transfers as much money from men to women as possible to support whatever poor life choices they make?

 

[pcgeek11]

At least it's cheaper than paying for the child for the next 18years.

We shouldn't have to pay for either one.

Personal responsibility has to come into play some where.

 

[Jhhnn]

You are on record as saying women should be able to abandon their children after birth.

Indeed I have. I'll quote myself-

There is no equality in a man refusing to support his children and a woman w/o the ability to support a child giving it to people who can and will, quite joyfully.

Failing to acknowledge that reveals the depth of your selfishness & depravity.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=33903075&postcount=486

Your most recent remarks merely reinforce what I offered.

 

[nehalem256]

We shouldn't have to pay for either one.

Personal responsibility has to come into play some where.

It comes into play when the government forces men to take responsibility for the woman's choice. Whether that be keeping the baby or aborting it.

 

[ShawnD1]

Republicans dont want to ban BC.

So they want to pass laws that would make most forms of birth control illegal, but this is not because they want to ban birth control? That makes sense.

 

[nehalem256]

So they want to pass laws that would make most forms of birth control illegal, but this is not because they want to ban birth control? That makes sense.

Only hysterical liberals have claimed that it would outlaw BC. Its no different than when Incorruptible was claiming liberals support 9month abortions.

 

[Fern]

If that how you see it, then there certainly *has* been someone not paying attention.

The Dems created the "war on women"? Puhleeze.

Read about it:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/obama-contraceptive-mandate-losing-senate-democrats/

Google it. The Obama admin had been in discussions with the Catholic church all along, since ObamaCare, assuring them the contraceptive requirement wouldn't apply to them or their charitable organizations. Then Obama suddenly blindsided them. No matter whether true or not, if you're not aware of this claim by the Catholic church you haven't been paying attention.

And at that time, whether you were watching MSNBC or Fox, all remarked it about being a strategy of diversion from the economy to social issues. Everyone watching political strategists, no matter which side, knows the Obama path is to win the 'women' demographic (particularly single women, he's got nothing for those married.). He can't get the male demographic and the Black demographic has always been his.

In any case you're not worthy of discussion. If you aren't aware of these well known political strategic points (admitted by both sides I might add) by now you're disconnected. If you are yet pretend not to know you're a liar.

Fern

 

[Fern]

So they want to pass laws that would make most forms of birth control illegal, but this is not because they want to ban birth control? That makes sense.

There is no 'Republican' push to outlaw birth control. That's stupid, stop hanging out at Daily Kos etc.

Fern

 

[Incorruptible]

There is no 'Republican' push to outlaw birth control. That's stupid, stop hanging out at Daily Kos etc.

Fern

Well said. Just typical fear mongering from democrats

 

[bignateyk]

So can we call this the Rush Limbaugh was right plank?

Democrats are undeniably in favor of forcing society to pay for women to be sluts after all.

We're gonna pay for it one way or the other, either through welfare or by funding abortions/BC/sex education. I'd much rather shell out a one time $500 abortion than >$100,000 in welfare over the 18 year childhood of the kid.

For some reason republicans are too stubborn/stupid/ignorant to realize this. By being unwilling to compromise it ends up costing us magnitudes more in the long run.

 

[Incorruptible]

We're gonna pay for it one way or the other, either through welfare or by funding abortions/BC/sex education. I'd much rather shell out a one time $500 abortion than >$100,000 in welfare over the 18 year childhood of the kid.

For some reason republicans are too stubborn/stupid/ignorant to realize this. By being unwilling to compromise it ends up costing us magnitudes more in the long run.

No welfare for sluts! We have women popping out babies because they know they get more money from the government. End welfare now. How is so hard to understand?

 

[nehalem256]

We're gonna pay for it one way or the other, either through welfare or by funding abortions/BC/sex education. I'd much rather shell out a one time $500 abortion than >$100,000 in welfare over the 18 year childhood of the kid.

We are only going to pay for it so long as you are to craven to tell sluts what to do with their body.

 

[Incorruptible]

We are only going to pay for it so long as you are to craven to tell sluts what to do with their body.

Well said. Tell these sluts that if they get pregnant then NO WELFARE!

 

[shira]

I would demand that no taxpayer money be used for abortion, UNLESS there is a determination by a doctor that the mother's survival / health is at greater risk than normal and the pregnancy should be terminated for medical reasons.

There is a reasonable argument to help a person survive at taxpayer expense. Though I wonder if they should be penalized if they use that option more than once.

You write "no taxpayer money" as if spending public money for abortions is wasteful.

Have you ever compared the cost of raising a welfare baby to age 18 with the $1000 or so needed to pay for an abortion? And if so, how DARE you waste tens of thousands of dollars of MY taxpayer money paying for a child that nobody wanted.

 

[Incorruptible]

You write "no taxpayer money" as if spending public money for abortions is wasteful.

Have you ever compared the cost of raising a welfare baby to age 18 with the $1000 or so needed to pay for an abortion? And if so, how DARE you waste tens of thousands of dollars of MY taxpayer money paying for a child that nobody wanted.

How DARE you suggest we spend money on welfare for these sluts. No WELFARE! Its stealing and I dont want to pay for this crap