- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
2
Posted on 5/1/23 at 4:41 pm to burger bearcat
I don’t think one of those portly looking slothy broads needs to worry about abortion. I wouldn’t touch them with Hunter Biden’s penis.
This post was edited on 5/1/23 at 4:42 pm
Posted on 5/1/23 at 4:45 pm to burger bearcat
quote:
So what are you advocating for eugenics now? This is obviously a loaded question meant to distract from the premise, but I would argue that a more decent, moral society that puts the traditional nuclear family unit at the forefront, and defends the most precious and innocent people amongst us, likely wouldn't need some all encompassing, bloated federal government to pay for more babies.
No I’m not advocating eugenics, not sure where you got that. And I agree that the nuclear family is ideal. I also live in the real world and recognize that people do have sex before marriage. I would imagine most posters on here for instance lost their virginity before marriage.
quote:
I could get side tracked on explaining all the reasons why, but none of this makes sense when we don't even agree on the premise. If abortion is just equivalent to removing a cyst, as you seem to see it. And I see it as equivalent to cold blooded murder, how can we ever get beyond this base level. Why would you even go beyond that point, if you just see it as a simple cosmetic removal procedure and nothing else. What else is there to justify or argue about, when getting into helping huge corporations like Citibank make a few extra bucks as some justification for chopping up babies.
No it’s certainly more than cosmetic surgery obviously, and I say this as someone who had an abortion as I mentioned earlier (well my wife did but you get what I mean). It was hard for her but carrying again knowing that it was guaranteed she would lose it because her cervix hadn’t healed yet from the last pregnancy we lost seemed like the more emotionally horrific experience for her and served no purpose so we aborted, maybe a month into it or so. And I also said that I realize I will never change your mind that it isn’t murder and you’ll never change mine that it isn’t. No idea what you’re talking about with Citibank.
Posted on 5/1/23 at 4:46 pm to DavidTheGnome
Should we impose a 5% tax on anyone who supports Joe Biden's border policy to pay for the illegal aliens pouring across the border?
If every idea that a Democrat had required some of their own skin, they wouldn't open their fricking mouth near as much.
Only a fricking Democrat can come up with the greatest utopian idea to save humanity and invariably proceed to lecture how to pay for it in every single way that doesn't involve a penny of theirs.
If every idea that a Democrat had required some of their own skin, they wouldn't open their fricking mouth near as much.
Only a fricking Democrat can come up with the greatest utopian idea to save humanity and invariably proceed to lecture how to pay for it in every single way that doesn't involve a penny of theirs.
Posted on 5/1/23 at 4:48 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:
670.4 million according to PPs latest annual report. That's absurd.
That’s also misleading . The $670 mm is "Government Health Services Reimbursements & Grants" for all things PP does from the government, which is a great deal more than just abortions.
Posted on 5/1/23 at 4:56 pm to riccoar
quote:
Should we impose a 5% tax on anyone who supports Joe Biden's border policy to pay for the illegal aliens pouring across the border?
I would rather stop them from coming in the first place as I’m sure you would as well. If we do allow them to come and to keep using government resources then sure, although I’d imagine it would require more than 5%. We have to get government spending under control and stop charging more and more to our kid’s credit card, something that has been increasing year after year after year for decades…including under Dear Leader.
quote:
If every idea that a Democrat had required some of their own skin, they wouldn't open their fricking mouth near as much.
Only a fricking Democrat can come up with the greatest utopian idea to save humanity and invariably proceed to lecture how to pay for it in every single way that doesn't involve a penny of theirs.
If you’re talking about me I’m not a Democrat. And I’m sorry but kids cost money, which is something many of the women who get an abortion don’t have. So if you force them to carry to term then you must also open up your wallet to help. Or I guess all the new children can starve to death, die from not having a roof over their heads, inevitably end up in prison (which costs $ btw), etc. It seems the compassion stops as soon as they’re born.
Posted on 5/1/23 at 4:56 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
I would imagine most posters on here for instance lost their virginity before marriage.
No pregnancies resulted. Strange. Some kind of magic I gues.
Posted on 5/1/23 at 4:57 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
That’s also misleading .
No, it's not. It's been proven that if their ability to perform abortions were removed, they would cease to have enough business to keep clinics open.
Posted on 5/1/23 at 5:05 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
That’s also misleading . The $670 mm is "Government Health Services Reimbursements & Grants" for all things PP does from the government, which is a great deal more than just abortions.
Fine not every dollar of the $670 goes to abortions, but planned parenthood's primary service is abortion.
Before you quote the misleading 4% of their services is abortion. That is the same as saying a steakhouses primary service isn't steak because it's only 1/6th of every meal. When you get a steak meal at a steak restaurant you also get a drink, sometimes bread, a side dish, alcohol, maybe a desert. But clearly a steakhouse is making their money off steak, or they exist to serve steak even if they make more money off of alcohol or something else.
The same goes with Planned Parenthood, even though they provide other services, they likely wouldn't exist if it wasn't for abortion. They exist to preform abortions.
what is also interesting they did 374,155 abortions in the 21-22 fiscal year, but only 6244 prenatal care services and only 1803 adoption referrals. If they are all about having parents plan their pregnancies why are abortions so high and prenatal care and adoption so low?
Posted on 5/1/23 at 5:13 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
If you’re talking about me I’m not a Democrat. And I’m sorry but kids cost money, which is something many of the women who get an abortion don’t have. So if you force them to carry to term then you must also open up your wallet to help. Or I guess all the new children can starve to death, die from not having a roof over their heads, inevitably end up in prison (which costs $ btw), etc. It seems the compassion stops as soon as they’re born.
I hate this argument that pro-life people only care about the baby before it's born, once it's alive we could care less what happens to it. That is so far from the truth.
Take for example the over 3000 crisis pregnancy centers in this country. They provide services for both before the baby is born and after the baby is born. If you are poor and find yourself in a crisis pregnancy go to a crisis pregnancy center, they will likely help you out.
What about the hundreds of thousands (edit: overestimated number of christian churches) of Christian Churches who help the poor, the needy, and I'm sure if given the opportunity and if they had the means would help a woman out in a crisis pregnancy.
Personally I wouldn't be surprised if republicans are more generous in caring for the poor than democrats. But because we don't want the government to do it, we are labeled the bad guys when it comes to the poor.
This post was edited on 5/1/23 at 5:15 pm
Posted on 5/1/23 at 5:21 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
No pregnancies resulted. Strange. Some kind of magic I gues.
And you know this how? That no one posting in TD didn't accidentally get a girl knocked up who they weren't married to? I'd imagine that number is greater than zero.
That said I'm not sure of your point. That they should be using birth control? If so I agree they should, and that it should be easily accessible from the moment they hit puberty.
Would you be in favor of IUDs being readily available to any girl who wants one? And it would need to be paid for by the government in many cases because families living paycheck to paycheck not having half a grand for one. It would cut down on unwanted pregnancies and save taxpayer dollars in the long run by preventing babies from being born that would require government assistance likely their whole childhoods and then the imprisonment many will eventually find themselves in.
But then there's the question of mom and dad not wanting little Susie to get one because it will turn her into a whore, and if she just keeps being a good girl with her legs closed and reading her Bible every night practicing abstinence until marriage all will be well. I don't know what to do on this one because I'm absolutely against anyone overriding the parents on medical issues with their kids. It's probably just a matter of it is what it is and they need to be prepared for the new grandkid.
Posted on 5/1/23 at 5:22 pm to burger bearcat
My Mom always told me, “Find you someone who loves you as much as a liberal woman loves abortion.”
Posted on 5/1/23 at 5:24 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
But then there's the question of mom and dad not wanting little Susie to get one because it will turn her into a whore, and if she just keeps being a good girl with her legs closed and reading her Bible every night practicing abstinence until marriage all will be well. I don't know what to do on this one because I'm absolutely against anyone overriding the parents on medical issues with their kids. It's probably just a matter of it is what it is and they need to be prepared for the new grandkid.
I don't even know what point youre trying to make except that you think its impossible to keep a kid from either being a whore, or getting pregnant.
Posted on 5/1/23 at 5:26 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:
I hate this argument
Consider the source.
In addition to everything you listed one of the services we offered (the center is still active but I'm not on the board any more) was post abortion counseling.
Posted on 5/1/23 at 5:41 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:
I hate this argument that pro-life people only care about the baby before it's born, once it's alive we could care less what happens to it. That is so far from the truth.
Take for example the over 3000 crisis pregnancy centers in this country. They provide services for both before the baby is born and after the baby is born. If you are poor and find yourself in a crisis pregnancy go to a crisis pregnancy center, they will likely help you out.
What about the hundreds of thousands (edit: overestimated number of christian churches) of Christian Churches who help the poor, the needy, and I'm sure if given the opportunity and if they had the means would help a woman out in a crisis pregnancy.
Personally I wouldn't be surprised if republicans are more generous in caring for the poor than democrats. But because we don't want the government to do it, we are labeled the bad guys when it comes to the poor.
I have no clue about Dems vs Reps as far as charitable giving goes but yeah I can definitely see the right give more, wouldn't surprise me at all.
And churches are great I'm not knocking them. But these people require more than a basket of canned corn and mac n cheese once, it's an ongoing need that im not sure churches are equipped to handle, certainly not to the amount of people who will need it. And what about beds and a roof etc? Again I'm not knocking churches and I think they do great things and the world is better off for them, but for a system to reliability dole out an ongoing means of support it's not ideal.
I hate that the government has to be the one there to provide the support but at the time it is the most reliable method.
Posted on 5/1/23 at 5:45 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
I hate that the government has to be the one there to provide the support but at the time it is the most reliable method.
Of course it's reliable, it never runs out of money. What it isn't is efficient, effective; those sorts of things.
Posted on 5/1/23 at 5:53 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
or all things PP does from the government
I thought government ran health clinics for these purposes.
Posted on 5/1/23 at 5:55 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
I don't even know what point youre trying to make except that you think its impossible to keep a kid from either being a whore, or getting pregnant.
I haven't called them whores, that seems to be what many in the thread have been doing. The girl must be a whore because she got pregnant, and no one mentions the guy being one. The blame and shame of sleeping with someone they aren't married to lies solely on the female for some reason, and the guy.....
And it's not impossible to keep kids from being a "whore" or getting pregnant. People do have sex though, and trying to stick to abstinence as the way to fix all this just isn't realistic. Like I said most in here lost their virginity to someone who's not their spouse.
Sex happens, and without easy access to birth control pregnancies inevitably do as well. And condoms for various reasons aren't the ideal, especially for someone who's like 16. Bobby keeps telling Susie he doesn't want to wear it because he can't feel it as much for instance, or that it pops or comes off. Which is why I asked about IUDs and if you'd be in favor of providing them to girls as a fail safe measure to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Posted on 5/1/23 at 5:59 pm to Flats
quote:
Of course it's reliable, it never runs out of money. What it isn't is efficient, effective; those sorts of things.
I agree. Nothing the government does is efficient. But to provide the help needed to a vast amount of people that need it or will need it due to all the new pregnancies churches and relying on them are even less so by a considerable degree.
Posted on 5/1/23 at 6:02 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
But to provide the help needed to a vast amount of people that need it or will need it
Do you even connect the dots here? When you subsidize something, you get more of that something. Paying women to be irresponsible just guarantees that more of them will be irresponsible.
Page 12 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News