My Cynical and Self Serving 180 degree turn on Abortion

[Orignal Earl]

One day, we have a guy saying welfare moms are having as many babies as possible to get a bigger check. The next day we have a guy saying they are responsible for the most abortions. How does one find the stats on well to do girls having abortions simply because it would cramp their lifestyle?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
And the neo-cons are so compassionate and embrace all ideologies and such. :disgust:
You're pathetic. What in the blue fvck is wrong with having universal health care other than it will take a few bucks out of your wonder woman wallet?

My few bucks in my wonder woman wallet are of great concern.

Compassionate liberals should be able to pick up the slack.

Suck it up bucky. We are a nation of one. Not one of a nation. It's an all skate. Grow up and deal with it.

Maybe liberals should do the above instead of crying about the President and his policy.

Sorry, not going to happen, we're fighting this administration and it's facist theocratic ideals as much as possible. Just check your paper and see how well he is doing. Bottom line, abortion is a difficult choice that is up to a woman to make, not some punk kid who doesn't have a clue how hard that decision is to make. Let alone make it a criminal act.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
And the neo-cons are so compassionate and embrace all ideologies and such. :disgust:
You're pathetic. What in the blue fvck is wrong with having universal health care other than it will take a few bucks out of your wonder woman wallet?

If that were true, then there wouldn't be any debate over 'universal healthcare'. However, in the case of healthcare, 'more' is not always better. I doubt many (if any) people would argue that everyone should have access to healthcare. The question is how to achieve this access without decreasing quality of care and skyrocketing the costs. Of course, it's easier just to swear at someone and treat them like an idiot, followed by your own gross oversimplification of the problem. Unfortunately, your generalization clearly demonstrates that you're hardly qualified to call him an idiot for not understanding the issue.

I really thought I made your ultra cool ignore list. I know I asked to be. Universal healthcare, what's wrong with it? Do you, along with zenny, feel that the poor have no right to medical treatment? And the quality of care in European countries and Canada doesn't seem to be suffering too much. Don't they have some sort of government funded healthcare?
And please feel free to add me to your ignore list.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
And the neo-cons are so compassionate and embrace all ideologies and such. :disgust:
You're pathetic. What in the blue fvck is wrong with having universal health care other than it will take a few bucks out of your wonder woman wallet?

If that were true, then there wouldn't be any debate over 'universal healthcare'. However, in the case of healthcare, 'more' is not always better. I doubt many (if any) people would argue that everyone should have access to healthcare. The question is how to achieve this access without decreasing quality of care and skyrocketing the costs. Of course, it's easier just to swear at someone and treat them like an idiot, followed by your own gross oversimplification of the problem. Unfortunately, your generalization clearly demonstrates that you're hardly qualified to call him an idiot for not understanding the issue.

I really thought I made your ultra cool ignore list. I know I asked to be. Universal healthcare, what's wrong with it? Do you, along with zenny, feel that the poor have no right to medical treatment? And the quality of care in European countries and Canada doesn't seem to be suffering too much. Don't they have some sort of government funded healthcare?
And please feel free to add me to your ignore list.

When did we establish a right to medical treatment?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
And the neo-cons are so compassionate and embrace all ideologies and such. :disgust:
You're pathetic. What in the blue fvck is wrong with having universal health care other than it will take a few bucks out of your wonder woman wallet?

If that were true, then there wouldn't be any debate over 'universal healthcare'. However, in the case of healthcare, 'more' is not always better. I doubt many (if any) people would argue that everyone should have access to healthcare. The question is how to achieve this access without decreasing quality of care and skyrocketing the costs. Of course, it's easier just to swear at someone and treat them like an idiot, followed by your own gross oversimplification of the problem. Unfortunately, your generalization clearly demonstrates that you're hardly qualified to call him an idiot for not understanding the issue.

I really thought I made your ultra cool ignore list. I know I asked to be. Universal healthcare, what's wrong with it? Do you, along with zenny, feel that the poor have no right to medical treatment? And the quality of care in European countries and Canada doesn't seem to be suffering too much. Don't they have some sort of government funded healthcare?
And please feel free to add me to your ignore list.

When did we establish a right to medical treatment?

Well, it's kinda been around a while zenny. If you go to a hospital and you cannot pay for service, they cannot kick you out. So, that's kind of a right, but in your little utopia, all the poor are dead or feeding you kippers, and you live with Jesus on a golf course in central Florida.
You're a sad little boy zenny, just a sad little boy.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
And the neo-cons are so compassionate and embrace all ideologies and such. :disgust:
You're pathetic. What in the blue fvck is wrong with having universal health care other than it will take a few bucks out of your wonder woman wallet?

If that were true, then there wouldn't be any debate over 'universal healthcare'. However, in the case of healthcare, 'more' is not always better. I doubt many (if any) people would argue that everyone should have access to healthcare. The question is how to achieve this access without decreasing quality of care and skyrocketing the costs. Of course, it's easier just to swear at someone and treat them like an idiot, followed by your own gross oversimplification of the problem. Unfortunately, your generalization clearly demonstrates that you're hardly qualified to call him an idiot for not understanding the issue.

I really thought I made your ultra cool ignore list. I know I asked to be. Universal healthcare, what's wrong with it? Do you, along with zenny, feel that the poor have no right to medical treatment? And the quality of care in European countries and Canada doesn't seem to be suffering too much. Don't they have some sort of government funded healthcare?
And please feel free to add me to your ignore list.

When did we establish a right to medical treatment?

Well, it's kinda been around a while zenny. If you go to a hospital and you cannot pay for service, they cannot kick you out. So, that's kind of a right, but in your little utopia, all the poor are dead or feeding you kippers, and you live with Jesus on a golf course in central Florida.
You're a sad little boy zenny, just a sad little boy.

Maybe, but he's a sad little boy who actually tries to debate the issue, instead of resorting to childish personal attacks in every post. Which makes him better than you.

 

[dwcal]

Originally posted by: zendari
When did we establish a right to medical treatment?

There's something called public health. Even if you throw out the concept of compassion or empathy, you must admit that you have a practical self interest in preventing and treating contagious diseases. You don't live in a bubble. Poor people walk in our midst and handle our food (even in fancy restaurants).

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
And the neo-cons are so compassionate and embrace all ideologies and such. :disgust:
You're pathetic. What in the blue fvck is wrong with having universal health care other than it will take a few bucks out of your wonder woman wallet?

If that were true, then there wouldn't be any debate over 'universal healthcare'. However, in the case of healthcare, 'more' is not always better. I doubt many (if any) people would argue that everyone should have access to healthcare. The question is how to achieve this access without decreasing quality of care and skyrocketing the costs. Of course, it's easier just to swear at someone and treat them like an idiot, followed by your own gross oversimplification of the problem. Unfortunately, your generalization clearly demonstrates that you're hardly qualified to call him an idiot for not understanding the issue.

I really thought I made your ultra cool ignore list. I know I asked to be. Universal healthcare, what's wrong with it? Do you, along with zenny, feel that the poor have no right to medical treatment? And the quality of care in European countries and Canada doesn't seem to be suffering too much. Don't they have some sort of government funded healthcare?
And please feel free to add me to your ignore list.

When did we establish a right to medical treatment?

Well, it's kinda been around a while zenny. If you go to a hospital and you cannot pay for service, they cannot kick you out. So, that's kind of a right, but in your little utopia, all the poor are dead or feeding you kippers, and you live with Jesus on a golf course in central Florida.
You're a sad little boy zenny, just a sad little boy.

Maybe, but he's a sad little boy who actually tries to debate the issue, instead of resorting to childish personal attacks in every post. Which makes him better than you.

Um, he doesn't debate, he throws out cheap talking points that are rice paper thin. Thanks for your input though.

 

[dwcal]

Originally posted by: Jadow
So, I cast my personal beliefs aside and say, ABORT ABORT ABORT!

Am I a monster for thinking this way? Do a lot of people deep down think this way but are too afraid to admit it?

Yeah, it's a callous way to say it, but people unprepared to be parents shouldn't have babies. You don't have to single out welfare moms. The problem is a lot bigger than that.

Also, there's another practical argument for the men. DNA paternity testing didn't exist in 1973. If you ban abortion, more men will find out how a baby "cramps their lifestyle", as another poster put it.

 

[johnnobts]

sheik, we already have universal healthcare, where joe-taxpayer is already flitting the bill, even for the millions of illegals. if someone walks intot the ER with a real medical need, he/she gets treatment. b/c millions of americans and illegals choose not to get health insurance (that's right, its a choice), costs go up.

 

[Phokus]

Mothers usually know best if they're able to raise a child or not. If they can't, the child ends up being a burden on soceity.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl
One day, we have a guy saying welfare moms are having as many babies as possible to get a bigger check. The next day we have a guy saying they are responsible for the most abortions. How does one find the stats on well to do girls having abortions simply because it would cramp their lifestyle?

All you have to do is ask. 🙂

Link

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
I really thought I made your ultra cool ignore list. I know I asked to be. Universal healthcare, what's wrong with it? Do you, along with zenny, feel that the poor have no right to medical treatment? And the quality of care in European countries and Canada doesn't seem to be suffering too much. Don't they have some sort of government funded healthcare?
And please feel free to add me to your ignore list.

I guess I may as well ignore you, since you completely bypassed every argument that I made. Easier to beat down the strawman than a reasoned argument, huh?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl
One day, we have a guy saying welfare moms are having as many babies as possible to get a bigger check. The next day we have a guy saying they are responsible for the most abortions. How does one find the stats on well to do girls having abortions simply because it would cramp their lifestyle?

All you have to do is ask. 🙂

Link

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
I really thought I made your ultra cool ignore list. I know I asked to be. Universal healthcare, what's wrong with it? Do you, along with zenny, feel that the poor have no right to medical treatment? And the quality of care in European countries and Canada doesn't seem to be suffering too much. Don't they have some sort of government funded healthcare?
And please feel free to add me to your ignore list.

I guess I may as well ignore you, since you completely bypassed every argument that I made. Easier to beat down the strawman than a reasoned argument, huh?

actually I did debate your point about the quality and skyrocketing prices, we already have skyrocketing prices here, there seems to be no visable ceiling either. And thanks for the cookie, I was a little hungry. Talk to Canada or some of the European countries that have govt sponsored healthcare and see if they aren't getting quality care.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: dwcal

Originally posted by: zendari
When did we establish a right to medical treatment?

There's something called public health. Even if you throw out the concept of compassion or empathy, you must admit that you have a practical self interest in preventing and treating contagious diseases. You don't live in a bubble. Poor people walk in our midst and handle our food (even in fancy restaurants).

That depends on whether the probability of gathering such a disease outweighs the cost of treatment.

And if this is the case, why should we treat noncontagious disease?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
actually I did debate your point about the quality and skyrocketing prices, we already have skyrocketing prices here, there seems to be no visable ceiling either. And thanks for the cookie, I was a little hungry. Talk to Canada or some of the European countries that have govt sponsored healthcare and see if they aren't getting quality care.

No, you debated nothing. You threw in some unsupported references, amidst your barrage of sub-par personal attacks, to other countries without even mentioning how they might pertain to the current debate.

We already have government-sponsored healthcare in this country. It's just not sponsored for everyone. As I said, no one will argue that everyone should have healthcare. The debate is how to best achieve this without bankrupting the country. Actually, in this thread, the debate had to do with something else entirely. As usual, you've co-opted the thread with a red herring argument since you have nothing of substance to add that might somehow be relevant to the OP.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
actually I did debate your point about the quality and skyrocketing prices, we already have skyrocketing prices here, there seems to be no visable ceiling either. And thanks for the cookie, I was a little hungry. Talk to Canada or some of the European countries that have govt sponsored healthcare and see if they aren't getting quality care.

No, you debated nothing. You threw in some unsupported references, amidst your barrage of sub-par personal attacks, to other countries without even mentioning how they might pertain to the current debate.

We already have government-sponsored healthcare in this country. It's just not sponsored for everyone. As I said, no one will argue that everyone should have healthcare. The debate is how to best achieve this without bankrupting the country. Actually, in this thread, the debate had to do with something else entirely. As usual, you've co-opted the thread with a red herring argument since you have nothing of substance to add that might somehow be relevant to the OP.

He's one of those liberals who make their party look shameful and have brought it to the full minority status it is in today.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: zendari
He's one of those liberals who make their party look shameful and have brought it to the full minority status it is in today.

And you're his counterpart on the opposite side of the spectrum. I wouldn't be so hasty to point fingers if I were you.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: zendari
He's one of those liberals who make their party look shameful and have brought it to the full minority status it is in today.

And you're his counterpart on the opposite side of the spectrum. I wouldn't be so hasty to point fingers if I were you.

Perhaps. Except for the minority status part.

 

[imported_sling]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Let us recognise that abortion is a very complex subject--one one hand you can argue that once the sperm hits the egg is a human life---but even then how pure are you---is their an exception for rape--how about the mothers health---shall we have both mother and fetus die for this idiological purity--how about aborting those we know will be born with a severe genetic defect?--something new in technology but it will be the future.

Dispite my claims to be smarter than the average bear, even my monsterous ego does not extend to claiming god like powers.
Until I get acclaimed a concesus god---or elevated by another god---I have decided that when the subject of abortion comes up;
ITS A GIANT MISTAKE TO IMPOSE MY VIEWS ON ANYONE.

Liberals have no problems imposing their views on me on many many things. Universal health care, Social Security, to name a few.

And the neo-cons are so compassionate and embrace all ideologies and such. :disgust:
You're pathetic. What in the blue fvck is wrong with having universal health care other than it will take a few bucks out of your wonder woman wallet?

That's my problem...mostly becuase I'm too poor to pay the rent but not poor enough for the state to pay it for me. So I pay my taxes and go on with life, but I can still say that it's a problem.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Jadow
I've been a Pro-Lifer as long as I can remember. Back in 2000, 1996, and less so in 2004, a main deciding factor on how I voted has been based on this one issue. I wasn't pro-life because of any religious reason, I just believe that the baby is not part of the mother's body, but a seperate entity who's life no-one has the right to take.

I still believe this, however, I am throwing my beliefs by the wayside. I'll live with fact that I personally will never request anyone who gets a shot of my seed gets an abortion, and fight hard to prevent.

But for the rest of the world, F it. Just F it. Abort as many babies as possible. I feel that my life and the life of my family and friends will be better with more abortions. Here's my hypothesis.

Most abortions are performed by poor, inner city, single mothers. If they bring that child into the world, the child will just be another burden for the welfare state, there is a high chance that child will become a criminal, even further taxing soceity, and there's a good chance that child will perpetuate the never ending cycle of poorness and just about every aspect of that baby, it's life, it's children's life, it's mother, it's siblings are basically a burden on soceity. A burden that I personally don't feel I should have to pay.

Now I am certain that some of those would be aborted babies, a large number of them probably will break the cycle, rise up by their bootstraps and make the world a better place. But most won't.

There's a great excerpt from the book Freakanomics on Amazon about how the crime rate plummeted by 50% in the 90's right around 20 years after Roe vs Wade. Coincidence?

So, I cast my personal beliefs aside and say, ABORT ABORT ABORT!

Am I a monster for thinking this way? Do a lot of people deep down think this way but are too afraid to admit it?

The truth hurts....don't worry you'll get used to it in time.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Kibbo86
Sooo, you're ok with babies being murdered because they come from poor families?

They aren't babies when they're the size of your finger, they're fetuses. Btw, how can you murder something without a working brain? Thats like murdering a plant.

😀

 

[fixxxer0]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Kibbo86
Sooo, you're ok with babies being murdered because they come from poor families?

They aren't babies when they're the size of your finger, they're fetuses. Btw, how can you murder something without a working brain? Thats like murdering a plant.

Oh yea, I forgot about my rose bushes in the front yard, that after about 9 months, turn into an baby.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Nevermind, just saw it was already covered.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Let us recognise that abortion is a very complex subject--one one hand you can argue that once the sperm hits the egg is a human life---but even then how pure are you---is their an exception for rape--how about the mothers health---shall we have both mother and fetus die for this idiological purity--how about aborting those we know will be born with a severe genetic defect?--something new in technology but it will be the future.

Dispite my claims to be smarter than the average bear, even my monsterous ego does not extend to claiming god like powers.
Until I get acclaimed a concesus god---or elevated by another god---I have decided that when the subject of abortion comes up;
ITS A GIANT MISTAKE TO IMPOSE MY VIEWS ON ANYONE.

Liberals have no problems imposing their views on me on many many things. Universal health care, Social Security, to name a few.

i pay for your military, prisons and all kinds of other junk. Get over it.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Jadow
I've been a Pro-Lifer as long as I can remember. Back in 2000, 1996, and less so in 2004, a main deciding factor on how I voted has been based on this one issue. I wasn't pro-life because of any religious reason, I just believe that the baby is not part of the mother's body, but a seperate entity who's life no-one has the right to take.

I still believe this, however, I am throwing my beliefs by the wayside. I'll live with fact that I personally will never request anyone who gets a shot of my seed gets an abortion, and fight hard to prevent.

But for the rest of the world, F it. Just F it. Abort as many babies as possible. I feel that my life and the life of my family and friends will be better with more abortions. Here's my hypothesis.

Most abortions are performed by poor, inner city, single mothers. If they bring that child into the world, the child will just be another burden for the welfare state, there is a high chance that child will become a criminal, even further taxing soceity, and there's a good chance that child will perpetuate the never ending cycle of poorness and just about every aspect of that baby, it's life, it's children's life, it's mother, it's siblings are basically a burden on soceity. A burden that I personally don't feel I should have to pay.

Now I am certain that some of those would be aborted babies, a large number of them probably will break the cycle, rise up by their bootstraps and make the world a better place. But most won't.

There's a great excerpt from the book Freakanomics on Amazon about how the crime rate plummeted by 50% in the 90's right around 20 years after Roe vs Wade. Coincidence?

So, I cast my personal beliefs aside and say, ABORT ABORT ABORT!

Am I a monster for thinking this way? Do a lot of people deep down think this way but are too afraid to admit it?

Judging by 1993, 94, and 95 statistics, you are wrong regarding who is having the most abortions. As a matter of fact, you are wrong regarding who is having the most abortions by race during any year I can find abortion statistics on.

I will, however, co-opt your idea on abortion as a means of limiting the burden those aborted offspring might be to society -- I support all abortions by members of the bush family, especially if those bush abortions could somehow be made to take effect prior to July 6, 1946.

Now that would really relieve a great burden on society.

PS You sound a lot like Bill Bennett.