- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
1
Posted on 2/1/17 at 3:58 pm to ballscaster
quote:Fine.
"By my logic that has nothing to do with your logic."
Just wanted to make you aware of the vacuous nature of your logic.
By all means though, please feel free to proceed on as if you're unaware.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 3:59 pm to ballscaster
quote:To do anything other than fight this battle in the political arena is to make the situation even worse, which is not what I want.
Ridiculously untrue, which is why I'm not buying your angle.
If you thought people were committing murders to the tune of 50million since RvW, you would have done more. But you don't do anything--you just preach. What you get from this is the same thing I got from it when I contributed the same as you to the abortion dialogue: perceived moral superiority.
Options (aside from the government making it illegal):
1. Kill pregnant women who seek abortions. Not effective as it kills two people instead of none.
2. Kill abortion doctors. Not effective as other doctors will be available.
3. Block access to abortion clinics. Not effective because you could be arrested for trespassing and abortions will still happen
4. Blow up abortion clinics. Not effective as abortions will just occur in other clinics/hospitals (can't blow up hospitals because you are now potentially killing other innocents)
And that doesn't even speak to the moral implications of those actions, which I believe are immoral.
All options result in either deaths or delays but doesn't fix the abortion problem. It's a war that has to be fought in the legislature and the courts.
quote:This debate has nothing to do with feeling morally superior. Such a thing was never stated and it isn't reality. I believe that abortion for convenience is immoral on its face and it has nothing to do with my own actions.
If you call the half of the country who are ok with a woman's 9th amendment privacy rights "murderers," you get to be "better than them." I get it. It feels good.
Also, the privacy argument for abortion is bogus and that's why it can be overturned by the courts. It's a made up right and therefore it can be taken away.
quote:What you and other lunatics are advocating is large-scale murder to stop murder as if that's a valid option. It's not. Those of us who think abortion is immoral aren't insincere; we are realists. The situation of a woman aborting her child is not the same as a man bringing a gun to a school with the intent to murder. You can't pull a gun on a pregnant woman or an abortion doctor and claim it's the same thing as stopping a school shooter.
But if the 53% of us who are morally opposed to abortion really thought it was murder, we'd have the problem solved over the weekend. But we won't. Because we don't believe abortion is murder. If you like saying it because it makes you feel good, I hope you're happy. But I'm not buying it. None of your actions indicate sincerity.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:00 pm to skrayper
quote:
P has a revenue of 1.15 billion in 2015 (WAY below OP's assertion of 5 billion). Of that, the sum of all non-government health services revenue was 305.3 million
Less than 30% of their overall revenue comes from the line item that would include abortion. Even a high water mark given of 260 million places it at approximately 20% of their entire revenue.
Politicians have tried to claim things like "87%" was from abortion.
Government revenue was around 528 million. This incorporates things like Medicare reimbursement. By law, these funds cannot be used for abortions.
Private contributions were around 390 million. You have the option of earmarking your contributions to NOT pay for abortions (like the Bill and Melinda Gates' Foundation does)
78 million came from operating revenue
It is impossible to know the exact amount of revenue that comes from abortion because the cost varies from state to state.
What you describe is a fund accounting shell game. Suppose all of PP's services cost $15 to operate. If PP had $10 in its right pocket to run all of their programs except abortion, and $0 in their left pocket for abortion, and the federal government comes in and gives them $5 and tells them to put it in the right pocket, and PP takes $5 out of the right pocket and puts it in the left how has the government not paid for abortion.
Anyone who says there is no taxpayer funded abortion is a liar.
This post was edited on 2/1/17 at 4:05 pm
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:09 pm to FooManChoo
quote:You would have put more thought into it than this if you actually thought it was murder. Sorry, but we both know that you'll do nothing to convince me that you actually think that abortion is murder.
Options (aside from the government making it illegal):
1. Kill pregnant women who seek abortions. Not effective as it kills two people instead of none.
2. Kill abortion doctors. Not effective as other doctors will be available.
3. Block access to abortion clinics. Not effective because you could be arrested for trespassing and abortions will still happen
4. Blow up abortion clinics. Not effective as abortions will just occur in other clinics/hospitals (can't blow up hospitals because you are now potentially killing other innocents)
quote:Mathematically speaking (ie, according to body count), Americans who are pro-choice are 10x worse than Hitler. You sure treat these DekaNazis gently. I'm not buying it. You can't sell it with words--only actions can sell the claim that abortion is murder.
All options result in either deaths or delays but doesn't fix the abortion problem. It's a war that has to be fought in the legislature and the courts.
quote:Privacy is Liberty. Liberty is an inherent right no matter what any constitution says, and you'll do nothing to take it away.
Also, the privacy argument for abortion is bogus and that's why it can be overturned by the courts. It's a made up right and therefore it can be taken away.
quote:^^^More crap that you wouldn't include in the dialogue if you actually thought about this issue seriously enough to justify your "murder" claim. I'm not buying it because you just don't take this issue seriously. "Abortion is murder" is nothing more than a hobby for you.
What you and other lunatics
quote:Nice try, but you'll not turn this around on me. I'm advocating honesty. That is, just admit that it's different from murder (even if you find it morally reprehensible, as do I), hence your disparate treatment of the issues of abortion and murder. If you saw a person with a gun pointed at a toddler 10 feet from you, you'd put yourself in harm's way to protect the child for obvious reasons, but if you walk by an abortion clinic, the most you'll ever do is pass out a pamphlet or two. You treat these two situations differently because they are different. We have two different words for these things because they are two different things.
are advocating is large-scale murder to stop murder as if that's a valid option.
quote:Precisely, 100%, my point.
You can't pull a gun on a pregnant woman or an abortion doctor and claim it's the same thing as stopping a school shooter.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:16 pm to gthog61
1. Don't be a Bully, especially to animals
2. Don't make fun of people because of their sexual preference or their race
3. If your girlfriend gets pregnant, talk her into killing the baby, you are to young for all that responsibility
Which one of the above isn't like the others?
2. Don't make fun of people because of their sexual preference or their race
3. If your girlfriend gets pregnant, talk her into killing the baby, you are to young for all that responsibility
Which one of the above isn't like the others?
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:26 pm to ballscaster
quote:
You treat these two situations differently because they are different.
Here's the thought experiment I've pondered for a long time that has helped inform my position on abortion (to an extent).
I'm not sure how I feel about abortion full stop. But I don't believe true human life, qualitatively, starts at conception. I have lots of friends and family who are adamant that it does. But whenever I ask the following, they can't give an answer consistent with that position.
Say you come upon a burning house. In the house are two rooms. In one room is a rack holding 100 fully fertilized eggs (or 2 month old fetuses, or whatever). In the other room is a four year old little girl. You have exactly enough time to run into the house and save the occupant(s) of one room. The occupant(s) of the other room are guaranteed to burn to death.
Now, if you truly believe, qualitatively, that human life begins at conception and is equally as valuable as born, conscious life, you would presumably choose to save the rack full of fetuses/fertilized eggs. After all, doing so would be like saving the little girl one hundred times over. And yet, I've never had anyone who I've discussed this with state that their choice would be to save the eggs/fetuses.
Why is that?
It's because, when it comes down to it, they don't actually believe that life at conception is qualitatively equal to born life.
Note that this in no way argues that there's NO value to the fertilized eggs/fetuses. But, it certainly argues that on a scale of importance/value, they're substantially lower.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:28 pm to duckdude
quote:
3. If your girlfriend gets pregnant, talk her into killing the baby, you are to young for all that responsibility
But see, your framing of this is totally inherent on your entrenched position, which is that abortion is synonymous with killing a human.
You have to understand that many abortion proponents don't feel that that's what's happening. They feel they're stopping a process before it advances to the point of being qualitatively human.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:29 pm to anc
You have to be a real piece of shite to be against Planned Parenthood.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:33 pm to Strophie
Never looked at it that way. Well-put.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:39 pm to Strophie
Can you imagine going to work knowing you were going to pull a couple infants out of the womb and depose of them somehow, strangulation, trauma to the head, I don't know, somehow and then go home at night and hold your own infant?
Wow, terrible, terrible couldn't even imagine the mental gymnastics people having one or people performing them go through.
To me it really is that simple, it's disgusting, it's disturbing and if you can't see it's wrong...
Wow, terrible, terrible couldn't even imagine the mental gymnastics people having one or people performing them go through.
To me it really is that simple, it's disgusting, it's disturbing and if you can't see it's wrong...
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:39 pm to Strophie
quote:Correct.
when it comes down to it, they don't actually believe that life at conception is qualitatively equal to born life.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:42 pm to Strophie
Yeah and back in the day some people didn't think of blacks as people so it was ok to hang one if it got out of line.
Hitler didn't think of the Jews as people either but that doesn't change the facts.
Does that make it ok?
You can think of the unborn how ever you want but when you set it on the table and it's squirming around...
Hitler didn't think of the Jews as people either but that doesn't change the facts.
Does that make it ok?
You can think of the unborn how ever you want but when you set it on the table and it's squirming around...
This post was edited on 2/1/17 at 4:48 pm
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:51 pm to Strophie
quote:
It's because, when it comes down to it, they don't actually believe that life at conception is qualitatively equal to born life.
But you're asking us to make a choice about something already here and something that is not. If you're hungry and I offer you one steak today or a whole cow nine months from now I'm pretty sure you would take the steak.
Maybe you should have said "if you have to choose between a seven month fetus and a two month fetus, which would you save or which of your two children will you save, the oldest or youngest.
I think that levels the playing field for the intent of the question.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:59 pm to duckdude
You're ascribing a position to me when I have yet to even offer one.
I mentioned in my earlier post that abortion isn't an issue that I have a definitive position on. Briefly, my current stance is that I don't think abortions are a negative when done early in the process. I just don't think that a fertilized egg qualifies as human life. Ergo, aborting early in the gestation period doesn't bother me. The analogy would be similar to how I don't believe that making scrambled eggs is murdering baby chickens. (And before you attack me for that, I'm not equating the value of human life to the value of a chicken, it's just an analogy).
I have a harder time with late-term abortions, but, generally, I think that the prevalence of them is overblown.
Your example of a fetus/baby squirming around on the table is a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of actual cases.
In most states, late term abortion is already illegal. In those where it's not, late term (post 20 week) abortion accounts for 1.7% of abortions. And in the vast, vast majority of those 1.7%, it's a last resort option that comes about due to severe risk to the mother or because the baby is expected to die during or shortly after birth from genetic defects etc found in utero.
That does not align with the narrative that some, if not many, late term abortions are a result of women routinely deciding, 2/3rds of the way through their pregnancy, that they can't handle a baby, so they want to abort it.
*edited to say "that doesn't align", in the last paragraph
I mentioned in my earlier post that abortion isn't an issue that I have a definitive position on. Briefly, my current stance is that I don't think abortions are a negative when done early in the process. I just don't think that a fertilized egg qualifies as human life. Ergo, aborting early in the gestation period doesn't bother me. The analogy would be similar to how I don't believe that making scrambled eggs is murdering baby chickens. (And before you attack me for that, I'm not equating the value of human life to the value of a chicken, it's just an analogy).
I have a harder time with late-term abortions, but, generally, I think that the prevalence of them is overblown.
Your example of a fetus/baby squirming around on the table is a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of actual cases.
In most states, late term abortion is already illegal. In those where it's not, late term (post 20 week) abortion accounts for 1.7% of abortions. And in the vast, vast majority of those 1.7%, it's a last resort option that comes about due to severe risk to the mother or because the baby is expected to die during or shortly after birth from genetic defects etc found in utero.
That does not align with the narrative that some, if not many, late term abortions are a result of women routinely deciding, 2/3rds of the way through their pregnancy, that they can't handle a baby, so they want to abort it.
*edited to say "that doesn't align", in the last paragraph
This post was edited on 2/1/17 at 5:14 pm
Posted on 2/1/17 at 4:59 pm to Homesick Tiger
I haven't read this whole thread yet, but to echo what a few others have said, Planned Parenthood claims that 3% of services, not revenue, are abortions. This is still a very misleading statistic though, as Planned parenthood has been shown to consider a 12-pack of birth control as 12 services and also counts pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, etc. as services even when they're packaged with an abortion.
They also give one of those 12-packs to each abortion patient, which means that any abortion will automatically only appear to be about 5%-8% of services.
Live Action has also shown that Planned Parenthood as a whole does not offer prenatal services and don't give ultrasounds unless a patient is getting an abortion.
Based on Planned Parenthood's own statistics, 94% of pregnant women that visit one of their facilities get an abortion. What incentive does Planned Parenthood have to attempt to help a woman care for a child or refer them to adoption?
They also, reportedly, ask for patients to donate 50% of cost even for things that are covered by insurance.
Another misnomer is that PP provides mammograms. They only refer patients.
They also give one of those 12-packs to each abortion patient, which means that any abortion will automatically only appear to be about 5%-8% of services.
Live Action has also shown that Planned Parenthood as a whole does not offer prenatal services and don't give ultrasounds unless a patient is getting an abortion.
Based on Planned Parenthood's own statistics, 94% of pregnant women that visit one of their facilities get an abortion. What incentive does Planned Parenthood have to attempt to help a woman care for a child or refer them to adoption?
They also, reportedly, ask for patients to donate 50% of cost even for things that are covered by insurance.
Another misnomer is that PP provides mammograms. They only refer patients.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 5:03 pm to ballscaster
quote:
If you thought people were committing murders to the tune of 50million since RvW, you would have done more. But you don't do anything--you just preach. What you get from this is the same thing I got from it when I contributed the same as you to the abortion dialogue: perceived moral superiority.
Agree. And, you see the same thing in relation to black on black murder. The liberals don't do anything about it because they don't view a black person's life being taken as murder. They equate that life much lower than that...otherwise, they would do something about it.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 5:06 pm to Homesick Tiger
quote:
But you're asking us to make a choice about something already here and something that is not. If you're hungry and I offer you one steak today or a whole cow nine months from now I'm pretty sure you would take the steak.
That's exactly right. Which lends weight to the idea that born human life has more value than in utero human life. You can't omit the "timing" aspect of it; it's intractable. That's the whole reason for the thought experiment. To extend your analogy, when I'm sitting at a high end restaurant and wanting dinner, I don't value a whole cow as highly as I value a properly prepared fillet.
If it was 100 little girls in one room and 1 little girl in the other, the answer is a no-brainer. But by virtue of the embryonic life not yet being gone through full gestation, let alone born, you have just admitted that it holds less value than the little girl, who's here, living, and breathing in the world. Right?
Posted on 2/1/17 at 5:06 pm to ballscaster
ballsinyourmouth, apparently you think that a woman is most times just an innocent victim of a pregnancy and that the evil man did it to her and she did not know what she was doing? Newsflash, if you've ever dated women(probably a stretch- do you play the male or female part with your partner?) you would know that they are every bit as conniving about sex that men are. They know exactly what they are doing. I'm of course leaving out women who are raped.
But you like men.
But you like men.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 5:10 pm to anc
Lol c'mon give Matt Walsh credit
Page 4 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News