"Planned Parenthood"?
-
Hey, hey, hey!
One, there's never a need to throw such an insult. :spank:
There's a human being on the other end of the keyboard, you know. :spank2:My comment earned me two spankings! So it was worth it! :cheers:
No, no, dear. You get the third emoji, the scolding. ICC gets a double pounding.
-
Since abortions are such a tiny part of what PP does (feminist narrative), then we can get rid of it and not make a difference.
The truth is, feminist don't protest about losing "the pill" if PP is defunded. They only protest about losing the ability to have abortion on demand.
There's a video of Congressman Trey Gowdy questioning some vaginalist about PP and defunding it. She admits that birth control is done through countless venues; clinics, PP, and whatnot. In the end, she admits we only need PP to provide abortions, since all the other bits are done, and done well, in other venues.
-
Since abortions are such a tiny part of what PP does (feminist narrative), then we can get rid of it and not make a difference.
The truth is, feminist don't protest about losing "the pill" if PP is defunded. They only protest about losing the ability to have abortion on demand.
There's a video of Congressman Trey Gowdy questioning some vaginalist about PP and defunding it. She admits that birth control is done through countless venues; clinics, PP, and whatnot. In the end, she admits we only need PP to provide abortions, since all the other bits are done, and done well, in other venues.
The question about PP is about Federal funding. If our taxes are used to fund abortion, then does that violate the religious freedoms of people whose religion says abortion is a sin punishable by their god? There might be other people out there, raphjd might be one of them, that are just against giving women access to x, y, z which PP provides.
Myself, there are enough shitty parents out there. I'm all for opening up a drive-through abortion clinic if it'll get the babies out of people who have no business raising a child. I'm all for making all forms of birth control free if it'll prevent some of the horror stories we see kids growing up in. But I'm one of 350,000,000 people. I have to be ready to compromise. What that compromise should be is the discussion.
-
Not just federal taxes, but any tax money.
I'm not against women having these services, but why should I pay for it? I'm mostly "pro choice".
Why PP? As we saw in the previously mentioned video, vaginalists admit that these services are available elsewhere. So why do we specifically need PP?
Why is it ok for the founder of PP to be anti-black racist (paraphrase; blacks are weeds that need to be eradicated), because that's "historical", but a celeb can't say "nice tits" in a historical case? Hypocrite much?! NOTE: not directed at anyone specific, just something I've seen when discussing PP.
OK, so you are pro death in all cases. You support abortion and executing innocent people. At least you are consistent, you believe in killing those who have done nothing wrong.
-
OK, so you are pro death in all cases. You support abortion and executing innocent people. At least you are consistent, you believe in killing those who have done nothing wrong.
I've been told I'm a candid SOB. Don't mischaracterize my idea. I support a system in which the guilty are locked up even if that means there are innocent people in the mix. If I want to mischaracterise you, I could say that you're for setting the guilt free to prey upon the innocent, but that isn't what you mean, is it?
Speaking of misrepresenting…
Not just federal taxes, but any tax money.
I'm not against women having these services, but why should I pay for it? I'm mostly "pro choice".
Why PP? As we saw in the previously mentioned video, vaginalists admit that these services are available elsewhere. So why do we specifically need PP?
You don't pay for PP. Your taxes go into a collective pool of money that pays for a lot of things. When people say they pay for PP or abortion, the arguments get personal. Think back to Kim Davis. She was a cog in the machine but let her ego dictate what the office she held stood for.
You and I live as one member of a nation and there are a lot of people who have said that these services are necessary for them. I haven't interest enough in the issue to look into it, so I'll take them at their word. I only see that people are pissed about abortion, which the Supreme Court upheld as a right. Fire up the stirrups and prime the morning after pills and let's cull next years crop of bad mothers 'n' fathers.
-
You believe in "net fishing" justice or the "kill them all, god will know his own" crap. Maybe I should start wishing people like you get the justice you demand others suffer.
Tax money is used to fund PP, I pay taxes, therefore I pay to fund PP.
Kim Davis has nothing to do with this. She was an office holder who violated her oath of office. NOT THE SAME THING.
No one is denying anyone services, as the vaginalists who testified before Congress admitted that these services are available through various means and PP isn't NEEDED for this to continue to be the case.
Abortion is a right, sure, I agree. You have not shown why I need to pay for it.
The USSC said I have the right to get married in the US. Using your logic, why do I have to pay to get married, you loonies need to pay for it so I don't have to.
The USSC said I have the right to have gay sex. Where's my fucking rent boy? You people need to pay for my rent boys, god damned it.
The USSC said many things are a right, so you bitches need to get to paying for my rights. NOW, GOD DAMNED IT!! NOW!!!
BTW, I'm still waiting for my cute rent boys!!!!!
-
You believe in "net fishing" justice or the "kill them all, god will know his own" crap. Maybe I should start wishing people like you get the justice you demand others suffer.
I don't believe in "net fishing justice". I'm telling you, factually, that there is a continuum of justice and even if you refuse to look at it the two choices I laid before you, they are exactly what every governing body, without exception, has had to choose from. If you are inclined, I suggest you read up on jurisprudence to see how different authors have presented their cases. Fred seems to have looked into it a bit.
Looking at your posts as a whole, you are angry that SJWs have made racism and rape cases require less proof so that more innocent people are harmed while the rest of the justice system requires more proof so that the guilty more often go free.
Tax money is used to fund PP, I pay taxes, therefore I pay to fund PP.
Kim Davis has nothing to do with this. She was an office holder who violated her oath of office. NOT THE SAME THING.Fine. Kim Davis was a poor example. The idea still that you don't personally fund all the operations of the government is still valid. Let me show you why:
-
I am a taxpayer. I pay for the police; therefore, I want you, the police, to arrest this man for rape and prosecute him to the full extent of the law because I pay for the judicial system, too.
-
I pay my tuition for this campus. I own this gate. I can say who can and can not pass through it. My brothers and sisters agree, so walk around.
-
My taxes paid for these roads. How dare you clog them when I need to get to work. Move out of my way immedietely.
-
My consumption taxes pay for this hospital so I should have a say about who gets treatment for what. I believe AIDS is a curse from God, so I demand my tax dollars be pulled from this hospital and this research.
These arguments sustain themselves on ego. I know you can do better than this.
Why should your tax dollars pay for abortion? They don't. The pool of monies collected by the government for all our benefits is used to fund PP and other organizations. So what exactly is your argument against PP? Is it only that it's a talking point for the opposing side? There are other places where they can perform such services? Fine. That's valid. As I said before, I have little interest in the topic, so I'm not doing the research to find out if this is true or not. What I have to weigh in my mind are the number of people who insist that they need these services, that some of these clinics are the only access some women have to birth control and abortion, true or not. That latter argument is more convincing to me, so I side with them – for now.
-
-
You clearly do support "fishing net justice" with your crap about executing innocent men prevents repeat offenders.
YES, any time an innocent person is wrongfully imprisoned/executed, it is wrong. The only people needing executing are those that advocate for this shit.
How is GWB refusing to delay that execution by 30 days to wait for the DNA test a bad thing? It's not and people like you have no problem with it. The man was fucking proven innocent 3 weeks after he was executed by the state. I bet you beat your dick when you think about that, based on your posts.
Your argument about tax money is not me paying for something is bullshit, again.
I never claimed that I personally own the 3rd desk to the left at the Houston branch of PP, as you walk in the door. HOWEVER, my taxes went to help pay for it.
If no one paid taxes, then PP wouldn't exist in its current form, if at all.
I'll give you a little hint, tax money comes from people paying taxes, which is money. Taxes aren't cheese or the odd socks that are left over every time you do laundry. It's actually money that people are forced to give to the government.
Your examples are bullshit on their very face because no one made that claim; direct ownership. If you want to continue this line of blatant crap, you will have to show me where I said I personally own the front door or any other physical item at PP.
And AGAIN, why do we have to pay for their stuff?! They don't pay for my rights, but I have to pay for theirs. I noticed you dropped this bit from your previous argument.
Your argument to justify PP is that some kids might have a bad upbringing, so kill a fuck ton of them to prevent it. Besides being insane, don't you realize that a fuck ton of kids have horrendous lives anyway? So let's have a realistic look at your argument. Use abortion to prevent kids from having a horrendous life, but there are billions of kids with horrendous lives. So, your logic says we aren't killing enough of them to prevent this.
If we look at your other argument from the other thread, we need to kill a bunch of them anyway to keep repeat offending down. Who gives a fuck if they ever committed a crime or not, we need to kill.
It's not murder though because the state is doing it.
-
You clearly do support "fishing net justice" with your crap about executing innocent men prevents repeat offenders.
YES, any time an innocent person is wrongfully imprisoned/executed, it is wrong. The only people needing executing are those that advocate for this shit.
How is GWB refusing to delay that execution by 30 days to wait for the DNA test a bad thing? It's not and people like you have no problem with it. The man was fucking proven innocent 3 weeks after he was executed by the state. I bet you beat your dick when you think about that, based on your posts.
Your argument about tax money is not me paying for something is bullshit, again.
I never claimed that I personally own the 3rd desk to the left at the Houston branch of PP, as you walk in the door. HOWEVER, my taxes went to help pay for it.
If no one paid taxes, then PP wouldn't exist in its current form, if at all.
I'll give you a little hint, tax money comes from people paying taxes, which is money. Taxes aren't cheese or the odd socks that are left over every time you do laundry. It's actually money that people are forced to give to the government.
Your examples are bullshit on their very face because no one made that claim; direct ownership. If you want to continue this line of blatant crap, you will have to show me where I said I personally own the front door or any other physical item at PP.
And AGAIN, why do we have to pay for their stuff?! They don't pay for my rights, but I have to pay for theirs. I noticed you dropped this bit from your previous argument.
Your argument to justify PP is that some kids might have a bad upbringing, so kill a fuck ton of them to prevent it. Besides being insane, don't you realize that a fuck ton of kids have horrendous lives anyway? So let's have a realistic look at your argument. Use abortion to prevent kids from having a horrendous life, but there are billions of kids with horrendous lives. So, your logic says we aren't killing enough of them to prevent this.
If we look at your other argument from the other thread, we need to kill a bunch of them anyway to keep repeat offending down. Who gives a fuck if they ever committed a crime or not, we need to kill.
It's not murder though because the state is doing it.
Even though I despise Tom Cruise, the movie "Minority Report" does a good job portraing the pitfalls of presumptive justice. That kind of justice would have blacks and mexicans quarantined in concentration camps based upon their race to prevent crime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_Report_(film)
-
You clearly do support "fishing net justice" with your crap about executing innocent men prevents repeat offenders.
…I noticed you dropped this bit from your previous argument.
You continue to drop the main topic about justice and the topic of the death penalty. You can't answer the question and you don't want to admit you're wrong so you evade it again and again and again, or so it is beginning to appear.
One more time, justice sits on a continuum. In Dothraki, they would say, it is known. I chose one and you chose the other. It's a simple as that but you refuse to acknowledge what I'm actually talking about. If you don't have an opinion about what I'm talking about, say so. If you're not interested in jurisprudence, say so. If the topic is over your head, don't deflect as you're doing.
How is GWB refusing to delay that execution by 30 days to wait for the DNA test a bad thing? It's not and people like you have no problem with it. The man was fucking proven innocent 3 weeks after he was executed by the state. I bet you beat your dick when you think about that, based on your posts.
On the topic of the death penalty, I'm not arguing about individual cases. I'm speaking in general, which is to say, I'm speaking from the mean, not the extremes (where your arguments lie [please notice the pun]).
Your argument about tax money is not me paying for something is bullshit, again.
I'll give you a little hint, tax money comes from people paying taxes, which is money. Taxes aren't cheese or the odd socks that are left over every time you do laundry. It's actually money that people are forced to give to the government.
Your examples are bullshit on their very face because no one made that claim; direct ownership. If you want to continue this line of blatant crap, you will have to show me where I said I personally own the front door or any other physical item at PP.
And AGAIN, why do we have to pay for their stuff?! They don't pay for my rights, but I have to pay for theirs.
You don't like to admit when you're wrong, do you? You should work on that.
Notice how your language has changed from singular to plural. What you say here is correct PEOPLE are paying, not you. Whether you like it or not, we speak a common tongue and when you phrase your statements "I pay for…" you are claiming direct ownership. Of course, in common parlance we understand exactly what you mean but the rhetorical device is meant to beat a drum of how you, you, you are affected.
Why does it matter? Because other people paid taxes into our communal system, too. YOU are not sole decider of what is done with OUR taxes.
So what exactly is it that you find offensive about PP? You're sending mixed signals. At one time your using abortion as a proxy for capital punishment at others you're talking about the services already existing. Personally, you sound like you lost your train of thought.
-
NOPE, didn't drop it because that is you point. You believe that the state murdering innocent men prevents crime.
You are advocating "fishnet justice" in hopes that killing innocent men, further crimes will be prevented.
I don't think you are going as far as feminism with the 1,000 rapes requires 1,000 men to go to prison, because stupidly they believe that every single rape is done by a different man or they just hate men. Who knows which, but you do seem to be going down that road, at least a bit.
Of course you aren't arguing individual cases, but you are arguing for innocent individuals to be murdered by the state. You're like the farmer who doesn't name his cows because he's gonna kill them at the end of the year.
++++
So, I'm not paying but everyone is paying. So none of my money is part of "everyone's money". Yeah, ok.
Originally, I was pointing out that we don't need PP because, even the vaginalists admitted before Congress, the same services are provided elsewhere.
After that, I was talking about your reason that we NEED abortions and how that is just as fucked up as your reason for justifying murdering innocent men to prevent crime.
-
So, I'm not paying but everyone is paying. So none of my money is part of "everyone's money". Yeah, ok.
Originally, I was pointing out that we don't need PP because, even the vaginalists admitted before Congress, the same services are provided elsewhere.
After that, I was talking about your reason that we NEED abortions and how that is just as fucked up as your reason for justifying murdering innocent men to prevent crime.
Let's keep the death penalty in that other thread.
If the bolded is too abstract for you, well, then it's too abstract. Either you understand and you're being stubborn because you dislike admitting you're wrong or you can't conceptualize that it's not just your money but everyone's money and so any statement that begins with some variation of "I'm paying for" is inflammatory rhetoric that is attempting to argue from emotion.
As for PP, with the number of anti-abortion laws being put on the books across the US PP might very well be the last option for women to get an abortion. I have not researched it but that seems to be what the general theme I'm hearing, which sounds probable.
As to abortions, they are needed. There are some states where there are only one or two abortion clinics. They might not be needed in large urban areas but in the bible belt and midwest there seems to be a need.
-
I'm just mesmerized as men, how much we've got to talk about a subject that doesn't involve us at all.
-
I'm just mesmerized as men, how much we've got to talk about a subject that doesn't involve us at all.
Hmm.. babies have nothing to do with men?
I would venture to say that even most GAY men have a child or two.. -
I'm just mesmerized as men, how much we've got to talk about a subject that doesn't involve us at all.
Hmm.. babies have nothing to do with men?
I would venture to say that even most GAY men have a child or two..Abortion is not about babies, it's about pregnancy. A baby is a fully developed fetus, outside of the mother's womb.
And yes, men have a role on pregnancy but it is women who carry it and face the difficulties so the last word should be theirs, not ours.
-
Women have 100% of the say in whether we are fathers of not. So why should I pay for her abortion?
Her body, her choice, her wallet
-
Women have 100% of the say in whether we are fathers of not.
If men opt to wear a condom, they can pretty much rule out unplanned fatherhood.
Why do you make such easily disproved and absurd remarks?
-
Women have 100% of the say in whether we are fathers of not.
If men opt to wear a condom, they can pretty much rule out unplanned fatherhood.
Why do you make such easily disproved and absurd remarks?
Meme thinking: it's easy to argue from extreme points than look at issues in their complexity. Hyperbole can be an effective tool when used well. When used well.
Anyway, we learned that raphjd does women. Apparently, he's knocked a few up, too. ::)
-
Abortion is not about babies, it's about pregnancy. A baby is a fully developed fetus, outside of the mother's womb.
And yes, men have a role on pregnancy but it is women who carry it and face the difficulties so the last word should be theirs, not ours.
You're thinking of it in terms of gender when there are just as many women who believe it is wrong for a woman to take the life of her unborn baby. Were all the men to disentangle them from all the policy you'd still have the same fight.
-
Is it the states responsibility to pay for such services offered by places like PP?
-
Should our collected monies be used to pay for something that goes against the belief systems of a portion of the contributors?
-
Since abortion is currently protectedby judgments made in the Supreme Court, should the federal government intervene in state laws that are trying to restrict abortions?
See. There's no reason men and women can't discuss this.
-
-
I'm just mesmerized as men, how much we've got to talk about a subject that doesn't involve us at all.
Hmm.. babies have nothing to do with men?
I would venture to say that even most GAY men have a child or two..Abortion is not about babies, it's about pregnancy. A baby is a fully developed fetus, outside of the mother's womb.
And yes, men have a role on pregnancy but it is women who carry it and face the difficulties so the last word should be theirs, not ours.
Is your last name "Clinton" by any chance?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login