RE: Is UNFETTERED ACCESS to family planning services (incl. abortion ) too extreme? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

farglebargle -> RE: Is UNFETTERED ACCESS to family planning services (incl. abortion ) too extreme? (3/28/2012 5:57:28 PM)

"Breeding Stock" is ESSENTIAL to their mindset. That's why there's that whole push to "inform" women about abortions before the procedure, as if the doctor hasn't already obtained informed consent -- like any other procedure. You don't need to watch a video for an appendectomy.

But when it comes to Women being Free to make their own decisions, All of a sudden the Informed Consent for any other procedure isn't good enough. Because they're not COMPETENT to understand all that discussion with the doctor and the forms she signed in the first place.

It's pathetic that these "Our Wimmins is OURS!" lackwits get so much attention. Which is why I push back by correcting them. They ain't "Pro-Life". EVERYONE is PRO-LIFE. They just grabbed to catchy brand-name to slap on their Anti-Family-Planning agenda.

So, we correct them. They're Anti-Family-Planning, and that's crazy in the 21st century.



SadistDave -> RE: Is UNFETTERED ACCESS to family planning services (incl. abortion ) too extreme? (3/28/2012 6:17:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
A woman must consent to an abortion


BLING! BLING! BLING! We have a winner folks.
A woman chooses an abortion. I choose not to see my tax dollars finance her personal decisions, exactly the same way I would not want her tax dollars to finance any personal decision I make. A persons personal choice does not immediately grant them the right to trample on the personal choices of someone else.

It is her right to make that decision. It is not her right to expect me, or anyone else to pay for her personal decisions. I do not have to consent to allowing the government to spend tax money to support anything. That is why we vote. To decide what the citizens want their tax money spent on.

Now, if a woman has the right to force me to pay for her choice to kill a child visa vi my tax contribution, then I have every right to demand that she comply with my decision to have her sterilized. Quid pro quo.

Only a complete idiot would think that I advocate sterilization. I am trying to point out the stupidity of liberal politics. Government funded abortion and government mandated sterilization are both ideologies of liberal fucktards who want to destroy American liberties.

-SD-




farglebargle -> RE: Is UNFETTERED ACCESS to family planning services (incl. abortion ) too extreme? (3/28/2012 6:27:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
A woman must consent to an abortion


BLING! BLING! BLING! We have a winner folks.
A woman chooses an abortion. I choose not to see my tax dollars finance her personal decisions, exactly the same way I would not want her tax dollars to finance any personal decision I make.


Are you saying that her tax dollars don't pay for services you consume? Her gas tax doesn't fix the roads you drive on? Her federal income tax doesn't pay for the same services yours does? Why are YOUR choices more important than HERS? Are you saying that breeding women are some sort of UNDERCLASS whom doesn't pay the same taxes you do?

And you don't get to consent to the delivery of other people's family planning services. Sorry. They aren't your property. Join the rest of us in the 21st century where women aren't your slaves.

If she's not deciding where you get your surgery done, why do you think you can tell her any differently?

Is it because, as you show by your presumption that WOMEN DON'T PAY TAXES TOO, and that YOUR CHOICES ABOUT TAX POLICY IS BETTER THAN THEIRS that deep down, you just really hate women, and can't deal with the idea of them being actual equals. Isn't THAT why you're really concerned about their vaginas? You're scared of vaginas! So you need to control what you fear.



SadistDave -> RE: Is UNFETTERED ACCESS to family planning services (incl. abortion ) too extreme? (3/28/2012 6:50:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
A woman must consent to an abortion


BLING! BLING! BLING! We have a winner folks.
A woman chooses an abortion. I choose not to see my tax dollars finance her personal decisions, exactly the same way I would not want her tax dollars to finance any personal decision I make.


Are you saying that her tax dollars don't pay for services you consume? Her gas tax doesn't fix the roads you drive on? Her federal income tax doesn't pay for the same services yours does? Why are YOUR choices more important than HERS? Are you saying that breeding women are some sort of UNDERCLASS whom doesn't pay the same taxes you do?

And you don't get to consent to the delivery of other people's family planning services. Sorry. They aren't your property. Join the rest of us in the 21st century where women aren't your slaves.

If she's not deciding where you get your surgery done, why do you think you can tell her any differently?



That is about the most inane arguement ever used.

I am not her slave to command that I support her bad choices. It works both ways.

In point of fact, I DO get to choose by my vote for or against representatives in government. This is an issue that liberals lost when the conservatives were in power. They did not pass it in the 4 years that Democrats controlled the House and Senate, 2 of which they also controlled The Office of The president (Not a typo) of The United States.

Obviously, as usual, your overly simplistic and finite opinion does not even resonate with other socialists enough to pass the legislation you want them to...

And since my taxes pay for the bus and the roads she uses the rest of your arguement is pretty invalid. If abortion is a choice, then it is an ELECTIVE surgery... I am not demanding that she pay for my ELECTIVE surgeries. If her tax dollars paid for any ELECTIVE surgery I choose to have, then you might have an arguement.

Incidentally, I would not support legislation that allowed me to use tax dollars to have an ELECTIVE surgey either.

-SD-



farglebargle -> RE: Is UNFETTERED ACCESS to family planning services (incl. abortion ) too extreme? (3/28/2012 7:17:09 PM)

quote:


And since my taxes pay for the bus and the roads she uses


HER taxes paid for it not yours. YOURS were used to ship Christian DVDs to Afghanistan. Prove otherwise.



RottenJohnny -> RE: Is UNFETTERED ACCESS to family planning services (incl. abortion ) too extreme? (3/29/2012 12:02:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

I don't see people saying 'no funding for appendectomies!"



NO FUNDING FOR APPENDECTOMIES!!!




Moonhead -> RE: Is UNFETTERED ACCESS to family planning services (incl. abortion ) too extreme? (3/29/2012 4:37:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Are you willing to feed these babies? Do you want to raise them?


I donate my share of time and money to help out those less fortunate than myself... How about you?

Not what I asked.
Are you paying for women who would rather have had an abortion to raise their unwanted kids? Yes or no?



Iamsemisweet -> RE: Is UNFETTERED ACCESS to family planning services (incl. abortion ) too extreme? (3/29/2012 7:35:32 AM)

Same thing I have been saying for years. Of course, back in the Arpig days, when you said something like that, you had him and four imaginary harpies calling you a "cunt that hates poor people."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

I go one further.

If a woman or family is on assistance and has at least 2 children, I'd say make family planning not only free but MANDATORY. That's right kiddies. You heard it right here first. I'd a lot rather my tax dollars pay for a coupla gyn visits a year and free norplants than to pay for the feeding and education of the brats that some bint squirts out every 10 months.

If they want to claim I'm stepping on their religious freedom, then let them get OFF assistance and The Church can pay for the care, feeding and schooling of "God's Gift".




Iamsemisweet -> RE: Is UNFETTERED ACCESS to family planning services (incl. abortion ) too extreme? (3/29/2012 7:43:56 AM)

I choose not to see my tax dollars go to pay for welfare and other benefits for children that can't be supported by their own parents and who have very few prospects in life. I would rather pay for an abortion. Why should your choice prevail over mine? Mine is cheaper.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
A woman must consent to an abortion


BLING! BLING! BLING! We have a winner folks.
A woman chooses an abortion. I choose not to see my tax dollars finance her personal decisions, exactly the same way I would not want her tax dollars to finance any personal decision I make. A persons personal choice does not immediately grant them the right to trample on the personal choices of someone else.

It is her right to make that decision. It is not her right to expect me, or anyone else to pay for her personal decisions. I do not have to consent to allowing the government to spend tax money to support anything. That is why we vote. To decide what the citizens want their tax money spent on.

Now, if a woman has the right to force me to pay for her choice to kill a child visa vi my tax contribution, then I have every right to demand that she comply with my decision to have her sterilized. Quid pro quo.

Only a complete idiot would think that I advocate sterilization. I am trying to point out the stupidity of liberal politics. Government funded abortion and government mandated sterilization are both ideologies of liberal fucktards who want to destroy American liberties.

-SD-






subrob1967 -> RE: Is UNFETTERED ACCESS to family planning services (incl. abortion ) too extreme? (3/29/2012 8:20:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Are you willing to feed these babies? Do you want to raise them?


I donate my share of time and money to help out those less fortunate than myself... How about you?

Not what I asked.
Are you paying for women who would rather have had an abortion to raise their unwanted kids? Yes or no?



Why would I? I didn't spawn them... Are you stupid enough to pay for someone's unwanted child?



Owner59 -> RE: Is UNFETTERED ACCESS to family planning services (incl. abortion ) too extreme? (3/29/2012 8:30:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Are you willing to feed these babies? Do you want to raise them?


I donate my share of time and money to help out those less fortunate than myself... How about you?

Not what I asked.
Are you paying for women who would rather have had an abortion to raise their unwanted kids? Yes or no?



Why would I? I didn't spawn them... Are you stupid enough to pay for someone's unwanted child?

So let the kid get starved into malnutrition?


We don`t do that..........in America......


Start paying us back for the bailout,Iraq,and '08' and we`ll entertain chatting about what you`ll pay for.



farglebargle -> RE: Is UNFETTERED ACCESS to family planning services (incl. abortion ) too extreme? (3/29/2012 8:36:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967
Why would I? I didn't spawn them... Are you stupid enough to pay for someone's unwanted child?


Given that once I write the check to the US Treasury, it's not really MY money anymore in that you can't tell which dollars are taken OUT of the treasury to pay for particular things.

So, I could say, YOUR MONEY IS NOT USED FOR FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES. YOUR MONEY IS USED TO KILL CHILDREN IN AFGHANISTAN.

Why are you spending your money killing kids on the other side of the planet?



Moonhead -> RE: Is UNFETTERED ACCESS to family planning services (incl. abortion ) too extreme? (3/29/2012 8:40:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Are you willing to feed these babies? Do you want to raise them?


I donate my share of time and money to help out those less fortunate than myself... How about you?

Not what I asked.
Are you paying for women who would rather have had an abortion to raise their unwanted kids? Yes or no?



Why would I? I didn't spawn them... Are you stupid enough to pay for someone's unwanted child?

No, you are if you're refusing to pay for them to have an abortion.



kalikshama -> RE: Is UNFETTERED ACCESS to family planning services (incl. abortion ) too extreme? (3/29/2012 9:54:14 AM)

Abortion Care Coverage and Health Care Reform: Getting the Facts
Straight

There is a great deal of misinformation being spread about abortion care in health reform efforts. This is an effort to
set the record straight about a few key facts. First, the majority of private insurance plans today cover abortion
care. Second, a recent Mellman poll revealed that nearly 60 percent of likely voters would NOT support health care
reform if it doesn’t include reproductive health care, including abortion. And, third, Americans do not want to see
benefits taken away under health care reform. In other words, women do not want to be worse off under health
reform than they are today.

Myth: Taxpayer money would be used to pay for abortions in the public plan.

Reality: Opponents of reproductive health care are trying to confuse people into thinking that the public plan is a
government-funded health plan like Medicaid or Medicare — it is not. The public health insurance plan in the
Exchange would operate like any private insurance plan would. It would be funded and paid for by private individual
premiums, in the same way a private insurance plan is. Therefore, there is no reason to treat any coverage issue,
including abortion coverage, differently in the public health insurance plan than in private plans in the Exchange.

Myth: Abortion coverage will be mandated under the current health care reform bills making their way through
Congress unless explicitly restricted.

Reality: Nothing in any of the current health care reform bills mandates abortion coverage — or any other type of
medical procedure — in the Exchange. Abortion is not mandated any more than any other medical procedure in
health care reform.

Factcheck.org rebuts this myth, stating: “In fact, none of the health care overhaul measures that have made it through
the committee level in Congress say that abortion will be covered, and one of them explicitly says that no public funds
will be used to finance the procedure.”

Opponents of women’s health and health care reform are exploiting this legislation as a way to push for
unprecedented prohibitions on abortion coverage in the private marketplace. And they are trying to undermine health
care reform.

Currently, the majority of private health plans cover abortion care as part of a broader health care
package. Moreover, according to a recent poll conducted by the Mellman Group, nearly 60 percent of likely voters
would not support health care reform efforts if they failed to include reproductive health care, including abortion. Any
attempt to prohibit health plans from covering abortion care in the Exchange would be a reduction in benefits and
make women worse off under health care reform than they are today. This would be a dramatic and dangerous shift
in the status quo for women, weakening access to care.

Read more: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CD8QFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.plannedparenthood.org%2Fstlouis%2Fimages%2Fst-louis-region%2Fmyth_vs._fact_sheet.pdf&ei=UZJ0T_SCIujo0QHm-JH_Ag&usg=AFQjCNH0AaJ-fLh4A5EcIdYOkye98VJRSA&sig2=leWKw8AYaruF5jr3K_BlKQ



kalikshama -> RE: Is UNFETTERED ACCESS to family planning services (incl. abortion ) too extreme? (3/29/2012 9:57:02 AM)

[image]http://mcwilleyfactor.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/abstinence-abstinence-demotivational-poster-12124464801.jpg[/image]



kalikshama -> RE: Is UNFETTERED ACCESS to family planning services (incl. abortion ) too extreme? (3/29/2012 10:03:54 AM)

quote:

YOUR MONEY IS NOT USED FOR FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES. YOUR MONEY IS USED TO KILL CHILDREN IN AFGHANISTAN.

Why are you spending your money killing kids on the other side of the planet?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Iraq_Body_Count_project

Iraq Body Count project

An independent UK/US group, the IBC project compiles "reported" Iraqi civilian deaths resulting from the invasion and occupation, including those caused directly by coalition military action, those caused directly by the Iraqi insurgency, and those resulting from excess crime (the IBC project asserts that the Occupying Authority[clarification needed] is responsible to prevent these deaths under international law). It shows a minimum of 99,004 and a maximum of 108,076 as of December 2, 2010.[14]

This total represents civilian deaths that have been reported by media organizations, non-governmental-organization-based reports, and official records.[15] The IBC project has been criticized by some who believe it counts only a small percentage of the number of actual deaths because it only includes deaths reported by respected media agencies.[26][78] The IBC project's director, John Sloboda, has stated, "We've always said our work is an undercount, you can't possibly expect that a media-based analysis will get all the deaths."[79] However, the IBC project rejects many of these criticisms as exaggerated or misinformed.[80]

Following are the yearly IBC project civilian-death totals[14] (as of August 14, 2011):

Year Civilian deaths
2003 12,087
2004 11,152
2005 15,491
2006 28,225
2007 25,063
2008 9,385
2009 4,713
2010 4,045
2011 4,087

Concerning the yearly totals, IBC project states: "All figures are taken from the "maximum" confirmed deaths in the IBC database. However, IBC's rates and counts will rise over the coming months, as data is still being added to the IBC database for 2006 and other periods covered here."[81]

The IBC project released a report detailing the deaths it recorded between March 2003 and March 2005[71] in which it recorded 24,865 civilian deaths. The report says the U.S. and its allies were responsible for the largest share (37%) of the 24,865 deaths. The remaining deaths were attributed to anti-occupations forces (9%), crime (36%) and unknown agents (11%). It also lists the primary sources used by the media — mortuaries, medics, Iraqi officials, eyewitnesses, police, relatives, U.S.-coalition, journalists, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), friends/associates and other.



GotSteel -> RE: Is UNFETTERED ACCESS to family planning services (incl. abortion ) too extreme? (3/29/2012 10:09:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet
I would rather pay for an abortion. Why should your choice prevail over mine? Mine is cheaper.


Yours is the fiscally conservative choice.



GotSteel -> RE: Is UNFETTERED ACCESS to family planning services (incl. abortion ) too extreme? (3/29/2012 10:11:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave
BLING! BLING! BLING! We have a winner folks.
A woman chooses an abortion. I choose not to see my tax dollars finance her personal decisions, exactly the same way I would not want her tax dollars to finance any personal decision I make. A persons personal choice does not immediately grant them the right to trample on the personal choices of someone else.


Wait where's the argument here? Last I knew tax dollars didn't fund abortions, has that changed?

Also while we're on the topic of tax dollars spent on things against our morality. I want my tax dollars to stop being spent on invading random countries. I'm against financially supporting the killing of actual children.



Hillwilliam -> RE: Is UNFETTERED ACCESS to family planning services (incl. abortion ) too extreme? (3/29/2012 10:11:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

Same thing I have been saying for years. Of course, back in the Arpig days, when you said something like that, you had him and four imaginary harpies calling you a "cunt that hates poor people."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

I go one further.

If a woman or family is on assistance and has at least 2 children, I'd say make family planning not only free but MANDATORY. That's right kiddies. You heard it right here first. I'd a lot rather my tax dollars pay for a coupla gyn visits a year and free norplants than to pay for the feeding and education of the brats that some bint squirts out every 10 months.

If they want to claim I'm stepping on their religious freedom, then let them get OFF assistance and The Church can pay for the care, feeding and schooling of "God's Gift".



I prefer to think I'm a "cunt that doesn't want poor people to be even worse off then they already are".



Hillwilliam -> RE: Is UNFETTERED ACCESS to family planning services (incl. abortion ) too extreme? (3/29/2012 10:17:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967


Why would I? I didn't spawn them... Are you stupid enough to pay for someone's unwanted child?

You and I pay for other people's children every day whether they were wanted or not. Personally, I'd rather see $500 of my tax dollars cover a D&C for an unwanted child than $100,000+ spent to feed, clothe and educate that same unwanted child so he or she can go and make a half dozen more for me to support 20 years down the line.

I'm a fiscal conservative. I support mandatory taxpayer supported Birth control for those with 2 or more kids who are on public assistance. We'll never see it because the hard core Liberals and Right Wing Bible beaters would join together to never allow such a thing but it's an interesting dream.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875