Democrat party platform: Favors taxpayer-funded abortion

[nehalem256]

Since we are on the subject of what we don't want to pay for, how about I have the option not to use my income to pay for our soldiers to have weapons and a warm place to sleep at night.

Now lets think about this a minute. How would the army not protect you, but protect me.

And are you willing to give up any say on how it is used. So for the next Iraq you keep your damn mouth shut? Since you are not paying for it?

Maybe we should just privatize the military. War can be a private decision between a man and his mercenaries

OR, how about I be able to refuse paying for social services like the police, teachers, or firefighters?

So you don't want to be protected from being murdered, or thieves? Or your house being burned down?

 

[alzan]

If what they do to their "body" is actually done to another body that the willingly allowed into it, and which can be considered murder. Then yes forcing people to pay for is forcing your morality on others.



So if it services men too how is defunding it a "war on women"?

Willingly? The official GOP platform allows no exceptions for rape or incest. As well, consent to having sex is not the same as consent to getting impregnated; but I'm not surprised that you don't understand the difference.

Murder? Sorry, a clump of dividing cells is not a person.

Planned Parenthood provides information to men. If most men are too lazy or ignorant to get the information that reflects poorly on them, not PP. Also, since it is women who carry the potential life in their body and who will in all likelihood bear the brunt of raising the child, defunding PP does affect women more than men.

 

[Incorruptible]

As a woman, I can do whatever the hell I please with my fetus up until the day I am not allowed to have an abortion because the fetus would have began to develop into a human by then.

No you cant! You cant kill the baby after you have it, that is murder

 

[nehalem256]

Willingly? The official GOP platform allows no exceptions for rape or incest.

You mean the same way the Democrat platform allows for aborting 9 month fetuses?

Or we could just make the rational assumption that both platforms are party circlejerks. And the GOP has no interest in talking about when abortion should be legal, just as the Democrats have no interest talking about when it should be illegal.

As well, consent to having sex is not the same as consent to getting impregnated; but I'm not surprised that you don't understand the difference.

Funny. When I suggested that consent to sex is not the same as consent to impregnating a woman I believe the response was somewhere along the line of: "Too bad. He needs to man up and take responsibility".

 

[Jhhnn]

You mean the same way the Democrat platform allows for aborting 9 month fetuses?

That's a lie. The platform sustains existing rights as defined by law & SCOTUS decisions, which *do not* provide for very late term abortions-

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman's decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs.

http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Democratic_Party_Abortion.htm

"We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. " is the operative phrase, which refers to existing rights, not what you claim at all.

 

[Greenman]

The admins should ban anyone from posting conservative viewpoints here. Then, when you complain, they can respond saying that conservatives have the same right to post liberal viewpoints that liberals do.

The admins can in fact do just exactly that. But your argument falls apart because marriage isn't a protected right. No one has the right to marry anyone they choose.

 

[Matt1970]

That's a lie. The platform sustains existing rights as defined by law & SCOTUS decisions, which *do not* provide for very late term abortions-

As painful as it is I have to agree with Jhhnn here I don't think anyone would support aborting a 9 month fetus.

 

[SheHateMe]

No you cant! You cant kill the baby after you have it, that is murder

After a certain period of time, you are not allowed to get an abortion. Late term abortions are illegal in the US. I am all for making sure late term abortions stay illegal since, that is the point when the fetus actually develops into a baby-like organism. However, I have the right to decide to abort before this period.

 

[Incorruptible]

After a certain period of time, you are not allowed to get an abortion. Late term abortions are illegal in the US. I am all for making sure late term abortions stay illegal since, that is the point when the fetus actually develops into a baby-like organism. However, I have the right to decide to abort before this period.

I agree that late term abortions should be legal. But when do you think should be the last time to get an abortion

As well why should people who oppose abortion have to pay for it, I shouldn't have to pay for it especially since its my tax dollars but if you want to pay for it yourself I have much less of a problem with it

 

[SheHateMe]

I agree that late term abortions should be legal. But when do you think should be the last time to get an abortion

As well why should people who oppose abortion have to pay for it, I shouldn't have to pay for it especially since its my tax dollars but if you want to pay for it yourself I have much less of a problem with it

I believe 3 months is the cut-off date. And to answer your question, why should people who oppose the war on "terror" have to pay for it? Their tax dollars are funding a senseless war that they don't want to pay for. Didn't you say you had a "loved one" on Medicare? Why should someone have to pay for that?

I think you are exaggerating on how much you think your tax dollars go to support abortions...if your tax dollars do at all.

 

[alzan]

You mean the same way the Democrat platform allows for aborting 9 month fetuses?

Or we could just make the rational assumption that both platforms are party circlejerks. And the GOP has no interest in talking about when abortion should be legal, just as the Democrats have no interest talking about when it should be illegal.



Funny. When I suggested that consent to sex is not the same as consent to impregnating a woman I believe the response was somewhere along the line of: "Too bad. He needs to man up and take responsibility".

I see; so all late term abortions (approx. 1000 per year) are done purely for the woman's convenience and none of them are for threat to the mother's life? Fascinating.

How many men have gotten pregnant and been the sole provider for the baby? If the man can't take the few seconds to wrap it, he can deal with the responsibility. If he chooses not to then he makes society foot the bill, financially speaking.

Yes we treat the different sexes unequally. I know in your heart of hearts you ache to have been born a woman so that you could get in on all the great perks like menstrual cramps, being viewed as little more than a baby-making factory and/or sex object, making less than a man for the same job, etc. Maybe in your next life you'll come back as a woman; we'll all cross our fingers for you.

So just out of curiosity, how much did the woman you got pregnant take you for? Several thousand? Tens of thousands? Either you got stuck with one hell of a bill or you're one petty little bitch. Pick one, I don't really care which you choose.

 

[nehalem256]

I see; so all late term abortions (approx. 1000 per year) are done purely for the woman's convenience and none of them are for threat to the mother's life? Fascinating.

The point is the Democratic platform makes no mention of when abortion should be illegal just as the Republican makes no mention of when it should be legal.

You are the one making ridiculous assumptions about what this means for one party and not the other.

How many men have gotten pregnant and been the sole provider for the baby? If the man can't take the few seconds to wrap it, he can deal with the responsibility. If he chooses not to then he makes society foot the bill, financially speaking.

You mean just like the woman can take a few seconds and ensure her bf uses a condom. Or take the pill. Or get an abortion.

And if she does not she makes society foot the bill to the tune of 100s of billions of dollars every year? Oh and no one will even call her on it?

Yes we treat the different sexes unequally.

So much for liberal belief in equality huh?

 

[nehalem256]

I believe 3 months is the cut-off date. And to answer your question, why should people who oppose the war on "terror" have to pay for it? Their tax dollars are funding a senseless war that they don't want to pay for.

It is the price they pay for getting a say in when we go to war. As well as for the military protecting them in cases of wars they support. So the decision to go to war and the costs are BOTH public.

Liberals want the decision on abortion to be private. But the cost to be public.

Perhaps we should take the government out of a war entirely. Then the next time some Neocons want to invade some Middle East they can just hire Blackwater or one of its competitors. Think of how much money can be saved by letting the free market work!

War should be a private choice between a man and his mercenaries. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

There's no such thing as "taxpayer-funded abortion" because "taxpayer-funded abortion" saves the government money!

In contrast, NOT funding abortion costs the government money. What we have is taxpayer funded religious idiocy.

How is that? Because whenever a child is born into poverty--guess who picks up the tab? Who do you think pays the costs of the delivery at the hospital? Who do you think pays the costs of the public schooling? Who do you think pays for the health care? Who do you think pays for any potential criminal justice costs? (Children born into poverty to parents who have no business having children are more likely to grow up to commit violent and non-white collar crimes.) Furthermore, it increases our nation's already exploding population, resulting in increased pollution and environmental costs and higher prices for food, land, and other natural resources.

Soup-prise! It's a shame that the national media won't pick that fact up and run with it. Anytime a Christian Taliban cries over taxpayer-funded abortion, he should be reminded that it isn't really taxpayer-funded because the end result is a huge net increase in the amount of tax dollars available. Therefore, failing to provide taxpayer-funded abortion costs the government money.

This point is so profound and yet so little known, it deserves it's own thread.

 

[alzan]

The point is the Democratic platform makes no mention of when abortion should be illegal just as the Republican makes no mention of when it should be legal.

You are the one making ridiculous assumptions about what this means for one party and not the other.



You mean just like the woman can take a few seconds and ensure her bf uses a condom. Or take the pill. Or get an abortion.

And if she does not she makes society foot the bill to the tune of 100s of billions of dollars every year? Oh and no one will even call her on it?



So much for liberal belief in equality huh?

So do you think men are too stupid to know how to use a condom or that they're too lazy? Are they incapable of enjoying any other sexual behavior than fornication or too inept to pleasure a woman orally? Are men incapable of having their sperm frozen and getting a vasectomy?

Not all women can take the pill as a means of birth control.

The belief in equality cuts across many lines; political, ideological, racial, income, etc., or didn't you realize that?

I know, isn't it great?

Pay for free birth control - $Several 10's of millions
Pay for unwanted babies - Several 100's of millions
Pissing off nehalen256 - Priceless

 

[nehalem256]

So do you think men are too stupid to know how to use a condom or that they're too lazy? Are they incapable of enjoying any other sexual behavior than fornication or too inept to pleasure a woman orally?

Your right. Clearly we should promote anal sex as free birth control

Are men incapable of having their sperm frozen and getting a vasectomy?

I wonder if a 17 year old boy can get that done without parental consent?

Not to mention that a woman could get her eggs frozen and get sterilized as well. But I have never heard that as an argumet against abortion.

Not all women can take the pill as a means of birth control.

Isnt it wonderful that there are a multitude of hormonal BC options as well as IUDs?

The belief in equality cuts across many lines; political, ideological, racial, income, etc., or didn't you realize that?

Notice how you left out gender. Interesting...

I know, isn't it great?

Pay for free birth control - $Several 10's of millions
Pay for unwanted babies - Several 100's of millions
Pissing off nehalen256 - Priceless

Or we could do neither. Cost $0.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

As painful as it is I have to agree with Jhhnn here I don't think anyone would support aborting a 9 month fetus.

Obama voted "present" on bill in the Illinois legislature to ban partial birth abortion, so apparently he doesn't think it's that clear cut.

 

[Jhhnn]

The point is the Democratic platform makes no mention of when abortion should be illegal just as the Republican makes no mention of when it should be legal

You seem to think it's cute, trying to dance on the head of a rhetorical pin.

Abortion law varies by state, but few allow abortions past 21 weeks, afaict, except in unusual circumstances. Here's an example-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...erm-abortion/2012/07/27/gJQAxSCjEX_story.html

Medical research from the Guttmacher Institute shows that post-21-week terminations make up less than 2 percent of all abortions in this country.

Women who obtain late term abortions are generally believed to do so for reasons similar to this woman's predicament. They didn't want an abortion, at all. In fact, they wanted a baby.

So, uhh, where would you draw the line in your forced abortion male utopia, anyway? What would you do with women who managed to avoid detection for 6 months or longer?

Or are you just arguing out of both sides of your mouth, as usual?

 

[Jhhnn]

Obama voted "present" on bill in the Illinois legislature to ban partial birth abortion, so apparently he doesn't think it's that clear cut.

And he's right, of course. partial birth is just one method of late term abortion. Others remain perfectly legal, and a rarely used anyway, other than in extreme edge cases.

 

[nehalem256]

You seem to think it's cute, trying to dance on the head of a rhetorical pin.

Abortion law varies by state, but few allow abortions past 21 weeks, afaict, except in unusual circumstances. Here's an example-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...erm-abortion/2012/07/27/gJQAxSCjEX_story.html



Women who obtain late term abortions are generally believed to do so for reasons similar to this woman's predicament. They didn't want an abortion, at all. In fact, they wanted a baby.

So, uhh, where would you draw the line in your forced abortion male utopia, anyway? What would you do with women who managed to avoid detection for 6 months or longer?

Or are you just arguing out of both sides of your mouth, as usual?

I am not arguing for or against 9 month abortions. I am saying that the Democratic Platform makes no mention of making such abortions illegal for the same reason the GOP Platform makes no mention of exceptions to where abortion should be legal. And it is not because either party is advancing extremist positions.

 

[alzan]

Your right. Clearly we should promote anal sex as free birth control

Fairly effective I would say.

I wonder if a 17 year old boy can get that done without parental consent?

Depends on how well thought out his reasoning when he proposed it.

Not to mention that a woman could get her eggs frozen and get sterilized as well. But I have never heard that as an argumet against abortion.

That's true as well. Maybe we should start a new government program aimed at helping women that choose that option.

Isnt it wonderful that there are a multitude of hormonal BC options as well as IUDs?

Yes it is wonderful. The medical advances we've made are astounding.

Notice how you left out gender. Interesting...

That's why I used "etc."; most forum members are intelligent enough to add in those factors I didn't list. I forgot you're one of those morons who needs everything spelled out for you down to the tiniest detail. It's a wonder you can remember to breathe.

Or we could do neither. Cost $0.

Nah! It pleases me greatly to know that we're whittling away your tax dollars and there's not a thing you can do about it. I think I'll write my representatives and have them come up with more ways to waste the taxes you pay.

 

[Jhhnn]

I am not arguing for or against 9 month abortions. I am saying that the Democratic Platform makes no mention of making such abortions illegal for the same reason the GOP Platform makes no mention of exceptions to where abortion should be legal. And it is not because either party is advancing extremist positions.

More distortions. The republican platform seeks to ban abortion under all circumstances-

We must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Republican_Party_Abortion.htm

That basic message is repeated several times in the platform. Life begins at conception, and fetuses have the same rights as those who have been born, period. They offer no exceptions whatsoever.

You don't even do the most basic research wrt your dishonest assertions.

 

[shadow9d9]

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.

A fetus with no brain matter is not a child, no matter how many times you try to repeat it.

It is bad enough that we just killed 100k innocent Iraqi civilians, but it was all done with MASSIVE taxes from the taxpayers. Outrage where? Real, fully grown humans...

 

[nehalem256]

More distortions. The republican platform seeks to ban abortion under all circumstances-

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Republican_Party_Abortion.htm

That basic message is repeated several times in the platform. Life begins at conception, and fetuses have the same rights as those who have been born, period. They offer no exceptions whatsoever.

You don't even do the most basic research wrt your dishonest assertions.

Because we discussed this earlier on the forum. Where hysterical liberals ranted about it and there were quoted Republicans that said that just because they did not list exceptions where abortion should be legal did not mean there were not any.

Basically it is one big circle jerk.

edit:

from you own source

We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion

Yeah looks to me like Republicans have no balls.

 

[Incorruptible]

I believe 3 months is the cut-off date. And to answer your question, why should people who oppose the war on "terror" have to pay for it? Their tax dollars are funding a senseless war that they don't want to pay for. Didn't you say you had a "loved one" on Medicare? Why should someone have to pay for that?

I think you are exaggerating on how much you think your tax dollars go to support abortions...if your tax dollars do at all.

I oppose the war on terror and dont want to pay for it. I NEVER said I had a loved one on medicare, that is a blatant lie, Remember that I oppose medicare and want to end it.

That doesn't justify spending money on something so senseless as this , killing innocent babies