• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Democrat party platform: Favors taxpayer-funded abortion

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Imagine we lived in a world where gay was the majority and the long standing religious view had been "Straight people have an equal right to marry someone of the same sex".

And you were straight..how would you feel being oppressed like that?

Because you have to be a right-wing Christian to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Certainly explains why Japan and China do not have gay marriage. Its because they are run by the Christian Taliban 😀
 
Because you have to be a right-wing Christian to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Certainly explains why Japan and China do not have gay marriage. Its because they are run by the Christian Taliban 😀

Deflect. That was not the question posed to you. Care to answer it?
 
Deflect. That was not the question posed to you. Care to answer it?

How do you answer a non-nonsensical question.

It is fallacious because

1.) Marriage being man-woman is not (just) a religious principle

2.) The majority of humanity being gay is impossible.

3.) You are assuming that there would be any reason for marriage to have ever existed if the majority of people were gay
 
Anything to distrfact from Obama's unbelievable failure as a president. Every 4 years we get treated to the same coat-hanger speeches and how Republicans want to kill their mothers, wives, and daughters. I could write every speech we'll hear at the Dem convention because it's the same shit we've heard for the last 60 years.

Six days into Obama's Presidency you had Rush Limbaugh saying he hopes Obama fails. Eight days into his Presidency you had Mitt Romney saying he hopes Obama fails. Six weeks into his Presidency you had Bill O'Reilly saying he's already failed. Two months into his Presidency he lost the super majority when Kennedy fell ill, and at which point the GOP proceeded to filibuster at a rate dozens of times greater than any Senate minority in American history. Two years into Obama's Presidency you had Mitch McConnell admit on TV that the GOP will do anything they can to make Obama fail to keep him from being re-elected.

And what do we have about 3½ years into his Presidency? We have gas prices at slightly less than they were before the economic collapse. We have a budget deficit lower than when Obama took office. We were losing jobs at 700k a month and have now had 30 months of private sector job growth. The DOW has rebounded from 8k and trending down when he took office (bottoming near 6k), and is now over 13k. As Biden chanted "Osama Bin Ladin is dead and GM is alive". Obama has had the smallest spending increase of any President in 60 years. The deficit which was $1.7 trillion dollars when he took office largely due to Bush tax cuts, medicare part D, unfunded wars, and an economic downturn is now $1.3 trillion; this despite it being Republicans who walked out on debt reduction talks. I could keep going actually, but do you see how you're completely wrong? I'm not thrilled with everything Obama has done, but he's actually done a pretty good job considering what was given and the most obstructionist minority Senate party in American history willing to sacrifice the well-being of the American people to get their way.

I think what I'm trying to say is that you're clearly and idiot and I just felt you needed it proven to you.
 
How do you answer a non-nonsensical question.

It is fallacious because

1.) Marriage being man-woman is not (just) a religious principle

2.) The majority of humanity being gay is impossible.

3.) You are assuming that there would be any reason for marriage to have ever existed if the majority of people were gay

I did say "imagine" which means picture it in your head. Lets assume for the sack of argument that gays produce babies wether male or female. Ignore religion, lets just say this is how society has been thinking for years.

You are straight and want to enjoy the same legality they receive under the government. How would you like it?

The point is you want to impose your beliefs onto others that do not share your beliefs. You dont want to treat every person equally in the eyes of the law. You want to discriminate as you see fit.

In other words youre a typical republican.
 
Six days into Obama's Presidency you had Rush Limbaugh saying he hopes Obama fails. Eight days into his Presidency you had Mitt Romney saying he hopes Obama fails. Six weeks into his Presidency you had Bill O'Reilly saying he's already failed. Two months into his Presidency he lost the super majority when Kennedy fell ill, and at which point the GOP proceeded to filibuster at a rate dozens of times greater than any Senate minority in American history. Two years into Obama's Presidency you had Mitch McConnell admit on TV that the GOP will do anything they can to make Obama fail to keep him from being re-elected.

And what do we have about 3½ years into his Presidency? We have gas prices at slightly less than they were before the economic collapse. We have a budget deficit lower than when Obama took office. We were losing jobs at 700k a month and have now had 30 months of private sector job growth. The DOW has rebounded from 8k and trending down when he took office (bottoming near 6k), and is now over 13k. As Biden chanted "Osama Bin Ladin is dead and GM is alive". Obama has had the smallest spending increase of any President in 60 years. The deficit which was $1.7 trillion dollars when he took office largely due to Bush tax cuts, medicare part D, unfunded wars, and an economic downturn is now $1.3 trillion; this despite it being Republicans who walked out on debt reduction talks. I could keep going actually, but do you see how you're completely wrong? I'm not thrilled with everything Obama has done, but he's actually done a pretty good job considering what was given and the most obstructionist minority Senate party in American history willing to sacrifice the well-being of the American people to get their way.

I think what I'm trying to say is that you're clearly and idiot and I just felt you needed it proven to you.


:thumbsup:
 
Well it becomes my fucking business when you want me to pay for it.

They are tons of things we pay taxes for I'm sure you and I will both agree are wasteful and wish we could opt out of. You can opt out of paying for these abortions and I'll get a check back for all the money I put into these wars. We'll compare checks and have a good laugh on my way to the bank a rich man.

People who are opposed to funded abortions then need to shut the fuck up about the welfare, food stamps, WIC, medicaid, free community college this kid will receive if born. Your message is only consistent if the well being of the child is ALWAYS in your best interest, not only when they are in the womb.
 
How about we just pretend none of your tax money goes to welfare/abortions etc. Ill pick up that tab with my taxes. And you can pick up defense spending that i dont support. Deal? 😛

So do you consider defense spending to be your business?

And I think that defenses spending should be cut as well anyway.
 
They are tons of things we pay taxes for I'm sure you and I will both agree are wasteful and wish we could opt out of. You can opt out of paying for these abortions and I'll get a check back for all the money I put into these wars. We'll compare checks and have a good laugh on my way to the bank a rich man.

Who said I want to pay for wars either. I would rather keep that money too.

People who are opposed to funded abortions then need to shut the fuck up about the welfare, food stamps, WIC, medicaid, free community college this kid will receive if born. Your message is only consistent if the well being of the child is ALWAYS in your best interest, not only when they are in the womb.

Who said I care about the best interest of the child. I am opposed to women extorting me for money both before and after the child is born.

Pay for your own abortion or get a coat hanger.
 
Imagine we lived in a world where gay was the majority and the long standing religious view had been "Straight people have an equal right to marry someone of the same sex".

And you were straight..how would you feel being oppressed like that?

No oppression found. I would setup the proper legal documents to confer the same powers to my live in partner wrt money and health concerns. I would then happily live my life. I know I would not feel the need to shout about what I do in my bedroom for the world to hear.
 
Stupid issue that only really matters to fundies. Next.


Then why are the libs fighting so hard to get it if it does not matter to them? You see, if something does not matter to you, you do not fight to get it...but since libs are fighting to get it...I will let you finish the sentence.
 
Who said I want to pay for wars either. I would rather keep that money too.



Who said I care about the best interest of the child. I am opposed to women extorting me for money both before and after the child is born.

Pay for your own abortion or get a coat hanger.

I respect your consistent message then. The child is of no concern to you. Only that somebody might be getting away with something. My concern is that this kid never be born to this stupid bitch you are talking about and it is worth it to me to stop it before it happens then pay for it for decades.
 
I respect your consistent message then. The child is of no concern to you. Only that somebody might be getting away with something. My concern is that this kid never be born to this stupid bitch you are talking about and it is worth it to me to stop it before it happens then pay for it for decades.

And what about the "bitches" that are too stupid to even get an abortion?

Should we make abortion mandatory for said "bitches"?

And we could always loan them the $500 for the abortion at 5% interest. If its good enough for Goldman Sachs it should be good enough for women.
 
I know. I'll send a dollar to the government. That should cover nehalem's share of abortion funding for the next 4,000 years and he doesn't have to pay it any further mind.

I wonder where his mind will take him when he is no longer burdened by the doings of the ladies.
 
Killing a child is cheaper than welfare. Why not adults?

This logic is evil.

An embryo (most abortions take place before it even qualifies as a fetus) is not a child. You can drone on with all the Bible thumping you want about how it's a human being as soon as sperm & egg meet but I don't care.
 
An embryo (most abortions take place before it even qualifies as a fetus) is not a child. You can drone on with all the Bible thumping you want about how it's a human being as soon as sperm & egg meet but I don't care.

Are fetus' children?
 
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.

You have a good soul in some ways. Like all bigots your intentions are good. The belief that life is sacred is a fantastic thing to believe, maybe the best thing there is to believe, but when the belief is based on the bigotry of absolutism the belief becomes a disease and a danger to the sanctity of life itself.

We live is a secular society that prevents religion from controlling law. We live in a society that is practical, that seeks balance and harmony among all sacred principles. This is what makes the right of life, the mother to her own and the child to its, a profoundly difficult thing to balance logically. The courts did the best they could and it's the law of the land. They decided that ascribing person-hood to a fetus would destroy a woman's right to decide whether she wants to carry a fetus to term.

It was a secular compromise based on reason to find a middle way through the fundamental paradox created by absolutism on either side. An abortion is not legal at any point, but legal early on when the person-hood of the fetus can reasonably be seen as less significant than the right of the Mother.

Because you are an absolutist and will not compromise, you would destroy the woman in favor of human tissue. You succumbed to the demented idea that one absolute trumps another based on bigotry. In this way what was good now becomes evil. Your love of a potential life creates an inevitable hatred for the rights of real and living women. Thus is it that you are a monster in the name of the good. You allow a sacred and decent idea to be carried to it's demented extreme. People not so affected with your religious dogmatism have neighed supreme and we are better off for it. All these women were babies and grown up you want to kill their rights. Whatever the abortionist is, you are too.
 
Back
Top