2012 US Spent 541 Million For Population Control - 1 Baby Killed Every 96 Seconds With Your Tax $

reply to post by elouina


No - it's don't complaint, or offer suggestions unless you are willing to do the work. You taught you?

reply to post by elouina


In my formative years I would have been appalled by such an indictment. Now that I understand how the world works; I say the less criminals, the lower the tax burden, the less social welfare spending the better. I don't quite care how those goals are met, just that they are.

UxoriousMagnus

EllaMarina
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus

 

I thought it was hardly a common practice to abort a third-trimester pregnancy unless the baby was seriously deformed or if the mother's life were in danger.
Sorry if you still think my brain is small, though. 9_9

*****************************************************************************************
is over 11,000 late term abortions per year common enough?....or would you like to see more?
www.lifesitenews.com...

Pretty impressive for 4 - yes just four doctors - to provide 11,000 abortions a year.

A documentary on the subject: www.thedailybeast.com...

reply to post by elouina


Fear not elouina, for there are some nations that are far more enlightened than the USA, like many in Africa. The poor there are allowed to pop out as many children as they want, they kinda have to though as more than 2500 children die of starvation every day.

Much better let a child die of starvation than aborting an unborn foetus..

UxoriousMagnus

Gryphon66
This is not a left vs right issue. It is not a conservative v. liberal issue. It is not a good v. evil issue. Grow up!

Does a woman have a right to make decisions about her body or not? That's the only question.

Excruciating decisions, heart-breaking decisions, but sometimes life-saving decisions ... like:

Karen Santorum, wife of anti-choice maven Rick Santorum, had a "procedure" to induce delivery late term TO SAVE HER LIFE. Yes, this is the same Rick who argues that no woman should have the choice to terminate under ANY circumstances. (Rick and Karen Santorum's Legal Abortion)

Anyone who wants to play with the word HYPOCRITE should probably start in that vicinity.

who said it was right or left etc?
here are two things you can't bring up in abortion discussions.....rape/incest and mother is going to die if pregnancy isn't terminated. The reason you can't bring them up is no one is arguing those points and because statistically those two situations are considered anomalies.....meaning they happen so little compared to the overall number.

again....you are being intellectually dishonest

edit on 14-1-2014 by UxoriousMagnus because: (no reason given)

I don't often address people individually UM, but ... where do you come up with these pronouncements?

Right or left? Read the discussion ... look for the words 'on the left' and 'leftist' being equated with eeevil. Pffft.

Who in the world brought up rape or incest? Not me. But the fact remains, that:

An abortion after rape is still an abortion.

An abortion after incest is still an abortion.

An abortion when the mother is going to die ... is still an abortion.

If it's wrong, it's wrong. If it's murder, it's murder. If it's not (and it's not) then it isn't.

Only the asinine non-ethics of anti-choice activism would be that self-contradictory. At least have faith in your own convictions and leave behind the special pleading.

Same fetuses, same removal from the uterus before viability. For some reason we "can't bring these up" is simply ridiculous. Why not? A majority of folks who are rabidly anti-choice absolutely take it all the way to no abortions even after rape because, hey, an abortion won't "unrape" the woman, now will it? Let's pray about it, sister. Pffft.

Is "intellectually dishonest" your only go-to description when you can't come up with a valid counter-argument? Or maybe the massive cognitive dissonance of your own position provokes it from you.

Gryphon66

UxoriousMagnus

Gryphon66
This is not a left vs right issue. It is not a conservative v. liberal issue. It is not a good v. evil issue. Grow up!

Does a woman have a right to make decisions about her body or not? That's the only question.

Excruciating decisions, heart-breaking decisions, but sometimes life-saving decisions ... like:

Karen Santorum, wife of anti-choice maven Rick Santorum, had a "procedure" to induce delivery late term TO SAVE HER LIFE. Yes, this is the same Rick who argues that no woman should have the choice to terminate under ANY circumstances. (Rick and Karen Santorum's Legal Abortion)

Anyone who wants to play with the word HYPOCRITE should probably start in that vicinity.

who said it was right or left etc?
here are two things you can't bring up in abortion discussions.....rape/incest and mother is going to die if pregnancy isn't terminated. The reason you can't bring them up is no one is arguing those points and because statistically those two situations are considered anomalies.....meaning they happen so little compared to the overall number.

again....you are being intellectually dishonest

edit on 14-1-2014 by UxoriousMagnus because: (no reason given)

I don't often address people individually UM, but ... where do you come up with these pronouncements?

Right or left? Read the discussion ... look for the words 'on the left' and 'leftist' being equated with eeevil. Pffft.

Who in the world brought up rape or incest? Not me. But the fact remains, that:

An abortion after rape is still an abortion.

An abortion after incest is still an abortion.

An abortion when the mother is going to die ... is still an abortion.

If it's wrong, it's wrong. If it's murder, it's murder. If it's not (and it's not) then it isn't.

Only the asinine non-ethics of anti-choice activism would be that self-contradictory. At least have faith in your own convictions and leave behind the special pleading.

Same fetuses, same removal from the uterus before viability. For some reason we "can't bring these up" is simply ridiculous. Why not? A majority of folks who are rabidly anti-choice absolutely take it all the way to no abortions even after rape because, hey, an abortion won't "unrape" the woman, now will it? Let's pray about it, sister. Pffft.

Is "intellectually dishonest" your only go-to description when you can't come up with a valid counter-argument? Or maybe the massive cognitive dissonance of your own position provokes it from you.

edit on 18Tue, 14 Jan 2014 18:19:00 -060014p062014166 by Gryphon66 because: typo

***********************************************************************************
a flaming avatar is perfect for you I think....
anyway....I must admit that it comes down to whether one loves life and holds it sacred as I do or if one thinks it has no value and can be destroyed without so much as a nights sleep being lost as you do. I feel it is life and is being destroyed. I don't want to tell women what to do with their bodies.....they can make the "choice" to have sex outside of a family conducive situation, they can decide to do this without protection from getting pregnant and they can decide to do this with as many partners as they want. But if they make all of these stupid decisions and get pregnant and start a life growing inside them....then I feel their choices have run out except for adoption. Because that voiceless, vulnerable life needs to be protected by someone stronger than it and if the mother and doctors aren't going to then I will try for it's sake. I will always try to protect and fight for anyone who is weaker and more vulnerable than me. This is what all men used to do but now most men are just feminized weaklings themselves.

reply to post by UxoriousMagnus


Thank you.

Second line.

Directing personal insults toward someone in a discussion is a tell-tale sign that there are no more valid points to raise.

A woman's right to her body is inviolate. There's no way to have an equitable treatment before the law in any other way. You don't get to decide any part of that, when or how she has sex, what she does for birth control, none of it. That's what drives a lot of people crazy, particularly those without uteruses.

The answer is quite simple. If you believe that abortion is murder, then don't have an abortion.

How arrogant to claim that someone anti-choice "cares about life" and someone who is pro-choice "doesn't care about life?" Categorizing people by such simplistic statements of belief is ludicrous. Personal beliefs are just that, personal. And all too often hypocritical, for example, the argument made here that abortion is justified in the case of rape, incest or harm to the mother. That's a glaring double standard. Yet, a post later, the claim is hypocritically that abortion is murder and that anyone who supports a woman's right to her own body therefore cares nothing about life.

Then comes the chest beating and bleating about protecting "someone" ... but almost universally one finds the chest-beaters and bleaters do nothing to support children, families, etc. "Cares about life" only matters until the kids bet here, and then, they're on their own, right?

Amazing how many who call themselves "pro-life" are also pro-war and pro-death penalty, against welfare and child support, eh?

No, no irrationality in that position. Not at all. Pfft.


PS: Fire Horse = Chinese Year 1966, but of course, in the lexicon of the irrational it could also mean gay, commie, liberal, child-murderer in a belief system were facts are optional and dishonesty, fear-mongering and misrepresentation are common.

FINIS

Ive thought on solutions to this fight.. and it IS a political point. I figure that the "pro abortion" "pro choice" crowd could set up a NFP organization to fund abortions and pay providers rather than demanding everyone pay for it regardless of religious or personal reasons. It would take the whole thing out of the hands of politicians and leave in it the hands of those who truly believe in choice for the reasons they explain. I resent women being used as political pawns in this fight, personally.

Its not only Xtians that are pro life. In St Louis there is a larger group of pagans who are VERY pro life.. and back it up with their own dogma. This is pitted as a xtian versus pro choice thing.. when in reality its not. If you all are kept fighting eachother.. youre not looking at who and what is the real problem here.

I am pro life.. for ME. I dont care to micromanage the rest of your lives, believe you make the choices YOU make and are personally responsible for those choices, and expect you would show me the same respect in not demanding I fund something and someONE I am personally against.

Besides eugenics, I think abortion was also funded by elite like the Rockefellers to just be a divisive wedge issue. People debating this sure doesn't threaten their power at all. I personally don't like abortion except for rape, incest or medical reasons, but I don't let it affect my vote like the elite want it to.

2012 Federal Budget Expenditures: $3.7 trillion (Cite-Heritage Foundation)

2012 Cost of the Afghan War: $99.1 billion (Cite-Center for Strategic and International Services)

2012 Federal Grant to Planned Parenthood: $542 million (Cite - Fox News)

2012 Planned Parenthood Abortion Services (3%): $16.26 million (Cite -Planned Parenthood Services )

Therefore:

Each taxpayer spent over 6000 times more on the Afghan war in 2012 than on abortions at Planned Parenthood.
($99.1 billion/$16.26 million = 6117.283)

Each taxpayer spent about 3 cents on the war, and if you cut a penny into 10000 pieces, less than five of those tiny pieces went to abortions.
($99.1 billion/$3.7 trillion = 0.0267 or 2.67 cents) ($16.26 million/$3.7 trillion = 0.00000439 or 0.000439 cents)

Is that ad absurdam enough for you?

Gryphon66
2012 Federal Budget Expenditures: $3.7 trillion (Cite-Heritage Foundation)

2012 Cost of the Afghan War: $99.1 billion (Cite-Center for Strategic and International Services)

2012 Federal Grant to Planned Parenthood: $542 million (Cite - Fox News)

2012 Planned Parenthood Abortion Services (3%): $16.26 million (Cite -Planned Parenthood Services )

Therefore:

Each taxpayer spent over 6000 times more on the Afghan war in 2012 than on abortions at Planned Parenthood.
($99.1 billion/$16.26 million = 6117.283)

Each taxpayer spent about 3 cents on the war, and if you cut a penny into 10000 pieces, less than five of those tiny pieces went to abortions.
($99.1 billion/$3.7 trillion = 0.0267 or 2.67 cents) ($16.26 million/$3.7 trillion = 0.00000439 or 0.000439 cents)

Is that ad absurdam enough for you?

edit on 15Thu, 16 Jan 2014 15:11:08 -060014p032014166 by Gryphon66 because: completed citation

you keep comparing abortion to the battle field.....why?

you keep saying that pro-life people are also pro-war.....why? It simply isn't true....and it is silly and you can't back it up.

pro-life people don't want to violate anyone's rights period....including the unborn baby's right to life. This is the part you don't seem to get.

Pro-abortion people always speak as if there isn't even a baby (life) involved in the equation .... you have to do this so that you can look in the mirror and not see a monster looking back at you.

Since when did we start putting budget numbers on life? It is not a dollar amount that is an issue.....it is that if even one cent of our tax money goes to something we find abhorrent ....then it violates common law, natural law.

Would it be ok if tax money went to "aborting" post womb, anyone who chooses a flaming horse as an avatar? No! And I would fight to keep you from being post-womb aborted even though you like the murder of babies.....

Who made you a fortune teller? You seem to know a great deal about how these kids would end up even though they have all been murdered before entering this planet. How do you do that?

Chest beating? ..... that's cute coming from someone who obviously lacks any testosterone .... you haven't seen chest beating.

but it isn't just your flaming avatar that gives you away....it is your pretty rainbow of colors signature too.....not that there is anything wrong with that.............

FyreByrd
reply to post by elouina

 

I just have to say this ... then I'll let you continue on your own *** way.

Are you willing to take in a crack baby, a fetal alcohol syndrome child? Raise them and pay for all the bills for 20 years and more?
And do it over and over? No - I didn't think so. It's easy to preach from your armchair but untill you have skin in the game, you have not credibility.

You don't want to see baby's killed (they aren't babies until they are born - they are fetuses). You just want endless lives ruined. You want endless drain on our collective resources to care for these children (and the women forced to bear them).

Hypocrite doesn't even come close to describing this, this evil.

You don't treat the symptoms, you treat the cause, the crap-bags that create children then throw them away like some unwanted broken electronics from the 80's are who you should be directing your apparent anger at. Not someone who thinks it wrong their tax dollars abort babies. And who is to say when the point of "life" is achieved, I'm not and neither are you. Endless drain on our collective resources? No. How about just a society that aren't a bunch of greedy, drug addicted, moronic jerks that think they know what is best for everyone.

Don't abort babies, stop worthless "people" from having children. No ones "lives are ruined" some people are over-joyed they saved a life and took care of it as their own child for years.

It isn't hypocrisy, or evil; It's empathic and compassionate, things that SOME of us here OBVIOUSLY lack. What is evil is your total disregard for human life. You're no better than the people going out and having babies while they smoke crack or drink daily. You would rather just say "kill the babies" because it is easier for you to do and agree with. Perhaps a "logical" choice in terms of saving money, but if money is worth more to you than a human life, you've already lost this game and have played directly into the people that own you and your mind.