Crappy economy, fraud everywhere, 3 wars...and GOP passes anti-abortion bill

reply to post by neo96


should not?

so slavery is immoral. so dont get the govt involved...

gays are immoral in a christian pov. so dont get the govt involved...

am i missing something?

the govt IS legislating morality, why are they banning abortion? because they believe it's immoral

reply to post by vjr1113


enlighten me what do slavery and homosexuality have to do with the government spending too much?

absolutely nothing.

yeah your missing alot.

reply to post by neo96


The government is not subsidizing abortion. It is simply not discriminating against certain types of insurance that happen to cover abortion services. I would be willing to bet that there is not much difference in the deduction a company can take for insurance that covers abortions and a company that deducts the cost of insurance that doesn't provide the same services.

Also, an individual taxpayer can only deduct medical expenses for whatever is over 7.5% of their AGI. AND you can only take the deduction if you itemize. The vast majority of taxpayers who itemize generally cannot deduct medical expenses because they are not over 7.5% of their AGI. So I highly doubt that majority of women who get abortions are taking the tax deduction.

reply to post by nunya13


the government has NO RIGHT to subsidize any healthcare it has no business doing it.

thats the way it is.

reply to post by neo96


my point was that the gop are acting on their religious beliefs. they believe abortion is murder and immoral, so they try to stop it. even if it means the life of some girl who was raped.

reply to post by vjr1113


stop with the petty politics

if your not even willing to look at the larger picture asthis nation as a whole

its part of the problem and as such will never offer any solutions.

reply to post by vjr1113


Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them wrong. To many it is a violation of morality, a disgusting violation equal to that of first degree murder. Attacking them on those grounds is rather disgusting, regardless of when you consider life to begin. Their views should at least be respectfully disagreed with not compared to reversing into the past and legalizing slavery.

This is why people with socially 'progressive' views are being increasingly mocked. The absolute hostility and snobbery knows no bounds. There is no respectful disagreement amongst those ranks it's either you agree or you are seeking a return to an uneducated and counter-intellectual past. That is what annoys people the most.

And you may call my beliefs in religion whatever you want, it does not bother me. It is not "imaginary" just because you have lost touch with that side of your being. If you prefer "rational" arguments then it is not for me to argue with. I will not criticize your views and so you should have enough respect in your character to not criticize mine.

reply to post by neo96


That's for an entirely different thread, man.

Only a cold hearted person would want to cut all gov subsidies, (im assuming foodstamps and medicaid are part of this)
Regardless what you think of the adults, there are children who depend on these things. I dont mind paying for them, because I know a child will be fed. I would hate to feed the gov, while babies and children, in our own country were hungry, sick, unable to recieve shots, or go to a dentist.

reply to post by Misoir


because it is popular view also doesn't mean its right. life before the second trimester does not exist. anyone who disregards the evidence and the science SHOULD be mocked. the rest of your post is ignored.

----

neo, i dont even know what our argument is anymore.

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by vjr1113

 

This is why people with socially 'progressive' views are being increasingly mocked. The absolute hostility and snobbery knows no bounds. There is no respectful disagreement amongst those ranks it's either you agree or you are seeking a return to an uneducated and counter-intellectual past. That is what annoys people the most.

You denigrate those who criticize the beliefs of others and then go on to refer to anyone who calls themselves a progressive and hostile and snobbish? Besides, there is a difference between criticizing others views and trying to force them onto others through legislation.

You tried to analogize murder with abortion. The difference is that everyone knows a human is a living, breathing, conscious being. It is up for debate as to whether a fetus could be classified as such.

reply to post by vjr1113


Elitist snobbery at its best, thank you for proving it beyond a shadow of a doubt. No worries you will not be bothered by me on this subject again.

reply to post by vjr1113


"not alive"?
They have a central nervous system at 6 weeks and a heartbeat!
They can feel pain.
Discovery News

One of the first clues that fetuses might feel pain came in the early 1990s, when researchers in England stuck needles into second-trimester fetuses and observed the release of pain-related hormones and nerve-signaling molecules. Before that, doctors thought the fetal nervous system was too undeveloped to feel pain. Even newborns endured surgeries without anesthesia.

Here are some 4D pictures of what babies do before the third trimester. Smiling, sucking their fingers, etc.
Here

reply to post by Misoir


you wanna talk religion buddy?

start a thread.

science and evidence is not elitism, but religion is.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by vjr1113

 

enlighten me what do slavery and homosexuality have to do with the government spending too much?

absolutely nothing.

yeah your missing alot.

You are trying to shift the focus of what the bill really does because I think somewhere you recognize it is an incredibly awful piece of work - or you just refuse to accept it for what it is - a government enlarging, tax increasing, morality legislating piece of crud. This bill will increase government spending.

Here is what this bill does:

-Eliminate tax deductions for abortions. Does this reduce the size of government? No.
-Redefines the definition of rape. Does this reduce the size of government? No.
-Establishes abortion audits and IRS abortion agents. Does this reduce the size of government? No.
-Bans abortions funded by DC. Does this reduce the size of government? Yes. Would this save the government more than a few thousand dollars a year? No.

I can't believe anyone on this board actually supports increasing the size and influence of the IRS. A woman would literally have to prove to the IRS she was raped!

Come on, really? just wow.

Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by vjr1113

 

"not alive"?
They have a central nervous system at 6 weeks and a heartbeat!
They can feel pain.
Discovery News

One of the first clues that fetuses might feel pain came in the early 1990s, when researchers in England stuck needles into second-trimester fetuses and observed the release of pain-related hormones and nerve-signaling molecules. Before that, doctors thought the fetal nervous system was too undeveloped to feel pain. Even newborns endured surgeries without anesthesia.

Here are some 4D pictures of what babies do before the third trimester. Smiling, sucking their fingers, etc.
Here

edit on 4-5-2011 by Clearskies because: of linkage

completely out of context, finish the article. google for yourself, no pain in the second trimester

reply to post by nunya13


All I am asking for is an open debate where those who disagree do so respectfully. No attacking one another for their views or dismissing them.

And yes it was hypocritical I will admit. I apologize for it. My anger and frustration exploded into typed form which is however still inexcusable. To correct my statement I would like to say that many social progressives are like that and it is definitely not universal. Same goes with anyone from any organized group whether it be political, religious, or other.

From the article:

effectively raising costs for businesses that offer abortion-inclusive health care to employees.

I'm not clear on how eliminating a procedure, abortion or other, actually raises the cost of insurance.
Wouldn't eliminating a procedure reduce the cost?

Unless we are talking about the cost rising due to elimination of taxpayer subsidies.

Oh wait, that's exactly what we're talking about!

The legislation would eliminate tax deductions for employer-provided health insurance plans that cover abortion

Silly me, I thought there was some bias in the article!

Oh boy. the thread is degenerating from a conversation about how the GOP are yet again wasting time and energy with fringe social con issues into a cliche 'pro life' 'pro choice' argument.

Reply to post by vjr1113

What is life?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com