Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-dems18jul18,1,639458.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

Apparently, both Obama and John Edwards support funding abortions through universal healthcare.

Now considering how much of a hot topic even ALLOWING abortions is; do either of these guys actually think that they can win their parties nomination by saying that taxpayers must pay for a procedure that about half of the country is against anyway?!?

And even if you're pro-choice, do you actually believe that abortions should be publicly funded?!?

Edwards doesn't have a chance. Also, I don't think that abortions should be publicly funded.

Hell no!!!!!

Unless there are extenuating circumstances that would damage the mother if she is forced to bear a child 9 months (rape victim, medical complications) the surgery should be covered in the same vein as other optional surgery, ie, individual pays.

Its nice that the American reaction to a fully private system is to just make it all gvernment paid for. Go leftists and their authoritarian tyrrany.

Originally posted by Grimm22
And even if you're pro-choice, do you actually believe that abortions should be publicly funded?!?

Conservatives b*tch about abortion, and then b*tch about welfare.

Abortions should certainly have public funding if the state is going to have to pay for the child. If you want the stop the public funding of abortions, figure out a way to deal with the kids.

im so sick of nitpicky nonesense on both sides. why include this in the proposal? its like they dont want it to be passed and would rather tie the issue up with this dimwittery. i think it should be stricken simply because an abortion, when not in the case of medical emergency, is not a medical necessity.

it often seems like there's a mutual and understanded effort between both parties to get nothing done. everything has to be an absolutist policy and nobody wavers. just chest beating and finger pointing. while this happens thousands per year in the u.s. die for lack of healthcare and dont get me started on everyone dying in iraq.

Originally posted by Schecter
it often seems like there's a mutual and understanded effort between both parties to get nothing done.

wow...

I've never seen our political system summed up so wonderfully

just have to clarify: i think abortions for medical necessity should be covered. this way conservatives dont have to play strawman tactics about suzy rottencrotch, the 5$ liberal whore who gets a free abortion every month. but noooooooooooo.

Well, I think nothing really should be publicly funded. But if something ever...then abortion.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I think nothing really should be publicly funded. But if something ever...then abortion.

thats the right plan. simple: universal abortion care

If you want a universal health care system then abortion should definitely be covered in it.

Originally posted by inimalist
Unless there are extenuating circumstances that would damage the mother if she is forced to bear a child 9 months (rape victim, medical complications)

I'm prosuming this is american government? But I agree with inimalist ^^

Originally posted by Fishy
If you want a universal health care system then abortion should definitely be covered in it.

should nose jobs be covered?

anything paid for by taxes is essentially something being done at gunpoint by the government

So, yes, I feel that by force the government should be able to take my money so that people don't die. However, if people are not personally responsable after they are ensured that life, I don't think that I should be forced at gunpoint by the government to pay for them.

And I agree with the opinions above about this being a suicidal and idiotic attachment to any medical bill in America. It really is asking for the whole plan to fail. If American's want a workable and accessable health care system, radical and sweeping moral changes are not going to help, and neither is the government just assuming the controls of the sector.

Originally posted by Schecter
should nose jobs be covered?

Only if there is a medical necessity or medical advantage to be gained from a nose job.

Originally posted by Fishy
Only if there is a medical necessity or medical advantage to be gained from a nose job.

thats how i feel about abortion. i dont think it should be unaffordable, and would support a reasonable co-pay system where the patient is taxed substantially, assuming the procedure lack necessity. i also feel this way about medical procedures not of medical necessity. pregnancy is not an affliction and in most cases is not a health crisis.

what i also hope they focus strongly on is dental and eye care. unfortunately in america, the abilities to chew food and to see properly are considered luxuries.

Originally posted by Fishy
Only if there is a medical necessity or medical advantage to be gained from a nose job.

should the abortion of a child that is not threatening the woman's life or medical stability be covered by the state?

I'm glad the Uk has the NHS.

Originally posted by inimalist
should the abortion of a child that is not threatening the woman's life or medical stability be covered by the state?

In my opinion yes, but I doubt it would be politically wise in the US.

Originally posted by Fishy
In my opinion yes, but I doubt it would be politically wise in the US.

I think it would be a bad thing for abortion to cost less than contraceptives

Originally posted by inimalist
I think it would be a bad thing for abortion to cost less than contraceptives
Actually, if by usual capitalistic means it should happen to be cheaper I don't see a problem with it. Other folks paying for it though seems unfair.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually, if by usual capitalistic means it should happen to be cheaper I don't see a problem with it. Other folks paying for it though seems unfair.

LOL

20 cent abortions......

dear god....

Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually, if by usual capitalistic means it should happen to be cheaper I don't see a problem with it. Other folks paying for it though seems unfair.

LOL, if the issue is resources public funded abortions make lots of damn economic sense. Cut plenty of welfare checks down to size

Just the same old thing...pay for the smokers, pay for the drunks, and why not throw abortions in there too?

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Just the same old thing...pay for the smokers, pay for the drunks, and why not throw abortions in there too?

because both alcohol and tobacco are heavily taxed so that the eventual burden to the public is lessened?

Originally posted by Alliance
Conservatives b*tch about abortion, and then b*tch about welfare.

Abortions should certainly have public funding if the state is going to have to pay for the child. If you want the stop the public funding of abortions, figure out a way to deal with the kids.

I don't even agree with Abortion, so why should my tax dollars have to pay for people to have them?

Besides the next step from this is forcing women to have abortions (which has been done before in Europe)

Let people pay for their own stuff.

Originally posted by Grimm22
I don't even agree with Abortion, so why should my tax dollars have to pay for people to have them?

all public systems assume that the sacrifice of the many is worth the benefit to the individual

For instance, Christians still have to pay taxes on education for schools that teach evolution.

My favorite one is that Drug users pay the police to arrest them and put them in the jails they already paid for.

Originally posted by Grimm22
I don't even agree with Abortion, so why should my tax dollars have to pay for people to have them?

Besides the next step from this is forcing women to have abortions (which has been done before in Europe)

That's for one not the same step and can you give me a source on that happening in Europe thing?

Originally posted by Grimm22
I don't even agree with Abortion, so why should my tax dollars have to pay for people to have them?

Besides the next step from this is forcing women to have abortions (which has been done before in Europe)

Personal "agreement" shouldn't be the deciding reason to have taxes. I don't agree with how welfare payments are carelessly given out, there's no motivation for people on welfare to get off welfare, yet, my taxes go to welfare.

That's a far reach don't you think? I'm not for this either, but let's not get ahead of ourselves with the "society of doom" mentality.

Originally posted by inimalist
all public systems assume that the sacrifice of the many is worth the benefit to the individual

For instance, Christians still have to pay taxes on education for schools that teach evolution.

My favorite one is that Drug users pay the police to arrest them and put them in the jails they already paid for. Well, same with murderes and every other criminal.



Except for tax frauders, that is hmm

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, same with murderes and every other criminal.



Except for tax frauders, that is hmm

criminals, the next oppressed minority

Originally posted by debbiejo
Let people pay for their own stuff.

stfu

Originally posted by Grimm22
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-dems18jul18,1,639458.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

Apparently, both Obama and John Edwards support funding abortions through universal healthcare.

Now considering how much of a hot topic even ALLOWING abortions is; do either of these guys actually think that they can win their parties nomination by saying that taxpayers must pay for a procedure that about half of the country is against anyway?!?

And even if you're pro-choice, do you actually believe that abortions should be publicly funded?!?

100% of American taxpayers are funding a war that less than 40% of Americans support. How is this any different?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
100% of American taxpayers are funding a war that less than 40% of Americans support. How is this any different? Innocent people are killed by abortion.

Well first I think birth control should be covered on all health plans. As for public funding what is the difference for health care for smoker, drug addicts and so on?

It's paid for on the NHS in this country you can go private if you want to but most don't. It works perfectly well.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Innocent people are killed by abortion.

Innocent people are killed by war.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Innocent people are killed by war.

Y-yes. I figured my humorous satire illuminated just that.

eat more poop

Let those who support abortion pay for them....

Those that don't....don't..

Well, those that don't support the war or fixing potholes; still have to pay those taxes. Why should this be any different?

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Well, those that don't support the war or fixing potholes; still have to pay those taxes. Why should this be any different?

The war is difficult can't say much. But fixing potholes helps reduce the amount of traffic. I don't mind paying for that....but I have to help pay for an abortion which I had nothing to do with....fcked it! Pull your own weight I say.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
The war is difficult can't say much. But fixing potholes helps reduce the amount of traffic. I don't mind paying for that....but I have to help pay for an abortion which I had nothing to do with....fcked it! Pull your own weight I say. However you could use the same logic saying that abortions help with over population, strain on the welfare system and so on.

In that case, "wars" help with overpopulation.

Originally posted by Robtard
In that case, "wars" help with overpopulation. Yes it does pitt_victory

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
The war is difficult can't say much. But fixing potholes helps reduce the amount of traffic. I don't mind paying for that....but I have to help pay for an abortion which I had nothing to do with....fcked it! Pull your own weight I say.

I have to help pay for the maintenance of roads that I do not use, and the public education of children that I do not have, and a war that I do not support. Too bad.

Originally posted by Grimm22
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-dems18jul18,1,639458.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

Apparently, both Obama and John Edwards support funding abortions through universal healthcare.

Now considering how much of a hot topic even ALLOWING abortions is; do either of these guys actually think that they can win their parties nomination by saying that taxpayers must pay for a procedure that about half of the country is against anyway?!?

And even if you're pro-choice, do you actually believe that abortions should be publicly funded?!?
I am pro-choice, but I am against public funding of it in most cases. I believe that it's wrong to force someone to keep a baby they don't want just as I believe it's wrong to force someone to pay for an abortion when they don't agree with it.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I have to help pay for the maintenance of roads that I do not use, and the public education of children that I do not have, and a war that I do not support. Too bad.
I do understand what you mean and share your sentiment somewhat. However, I don't think two wrongs make a right.

Originally posted by Schecter
stfu Star light, star bright, first star I see.........what the heck??

Originally posted by Schecter
it often seems like there's a mutual and understanded effort between both parties to get nothing done.

Then you do it.

I personally don't think abortions should be funded through public money, I think that is wrong. I am pro choice but if you want an abortion you should get it with your own money. However if someone can't come up with the 300-500 to get the procedure done I have to wonder how people expect them to take care of a child?

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
I personally don't think abortions should be funded through public money, I think that is wrong. I am pro choice but if you want an abortion you should get it with your own money. However if someone can't come up with the 300-500 to get the procedure done I have to wonder how people expect them to take care of a child? adoption.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
adoption.
But what about kids who are harder to adopt? I know that black babies are really hard to place. Should they really birth a kid just to put them into that system?

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
But what about kids who are harder to adopt? I know that black babies are really hard to place. Should they really birth a kid just to put them into that system? even if they are not adopted, they have a chance to become productive human beings.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
even if they are not adopted, they have a chance to become productive human beings.
I suppose...but what a miserable life growing up like that

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
even if they are not adopted, they have a chance to become productive human beings.

IF they are adopted.

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
I suppose...but what a miserable life growing up like that but at least its a life.

Originally posted by Alliance
IF they are adopted. read it again.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
The war is difficult can't say much. But fixing potholes helps reduce the amount of traffic. I don't mind paying for that....but I have to help pay for an abortion which I had nothing to do with....fcked it! Pull your own weight I say.

That's good for you, but why should your reasoning not apply to that.

Who supports the war pays for it, those who don't....don't.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
adoption.

Because that works so well that there are no children in foster home without a chance of ever getting adopted.Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
even if they are not adopted, they have a chance to become productive human beings.

Or they have a chance e(better than average) to become crack whores that suck your dick for 5 dollars.


Wait a minute...now I see why you support that. You make me sick.


Also, RJ, it seems unfair that people with less money especially should in the end be forced to first go through the harms of a pregnancy and then possibly have to pay for a child which will cost much more in the long run. If anything you want poor people to get an abortion anyways. Might reduce crime

Originally posted by Bardock42




Because that works so well that there are no children in foster home without a chance of ever getting adopted. so if someone grows up in a foster home they are automatically scum who will never amount to anything?

nice try, but I get it for free. maybe you should GET a BJ OR a piece of ass before opening your face hole and spouting off a bunch of psychobabble about others sex lives when you dont even have one of your own.


so...kill unborn babies, reduce crime....you should be a senator.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
so if someone grows up in a foster home they are automatically scum who will never amount to anything?

nice try, but I get it for free. maybe you should GET a BJ OR a piece of ass before opening your face hole and spouting off a bunch of psychobabble about others sex lives when you dont even have one of your own.


so...kill unborn babies, reduce crime....you should be a senator.

If you read again you will realize that is not what I said.



Disregarding the point and focusing on the joke. Good job.



It's not unborn babies it's a fetus, and it actually works. And the best thing is, the fetus never ever complains.

Originally posted by Bardock42
If you read again you will realize that is not what I said.



Disregarding the point and focusing on the joke. Good job.



It's not unborn babies it's a fetus, and it actually works. And the best thing is, the fetus never ever complains.
your point is BS. the joke sucked. deal with it and move on.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
your point is BS. the joke sucked. deal with it and move on.

Not really. There are lots of children in foster homes that no one takes care of.

Abortion does indeed decrease criminality.


And a woman should not be forced to go through the nine months of hardship and maybe even a lifetime with a kid she didn't want because your religious ideals want her to. Abortion is the best solution as it doesn't hurt anyone, but knee jerk religious morons who should be hurt on a daily basis anyways.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not really. There are lots of children in foster homes that no one takes care of.

Abortion does indeed decrease criminality.


And a woman should not be forced to go through the nine months of hardship and maybe even a lifetime with a kid she didn't want because your religious ideals want her to. Abortion is the best solution as it doesn't hurt anyone, but knee jerk religious morons who should be hurt on a daily basis anyways. and here we go again on the woman being uncomfortable for nine months. she knew the risk. odds are she wasnt using birth control, so i have no sympathy for her.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
and here we go again on the woman being uncomfortable for nine months. she knew the risk. odds are she wasnt using birth control, so i have no sympathy for her.

That doesn't matter though.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That doesn't matter though. actually, it does. why doesnt it matter?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
actually, it does. why doesnt it matter?

Cause your sympathy is no measurement of law making or reasonable decisions.

You may dislike it all you want, for many reasons most intelligent people agree with abortion and that is also why it is legal in most first world countries.

Someone beat me to commenting upon how tax money is constantly being spent on things that those paying taxes may be apathetic towards or be against, atheists and agnostics pay for "faith-based initiatives"; singles and couples without children pay for state-funded education; people pay for the "War on 'terror'" and so on and so forth.

That being said, elective medical procedures should not be state funded.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Cause your sympathy is no measurement of law making or reasonable decisions.

You may dislike it all you want, for many reasons most intelligent people agree with abortion and that is also why it is legal in most first world countries. wrong thread, dummy.

The example of ''if I don't agree with it, I' not paying'' is pathetic. Given that, Jehovah's witnesses shouldn't have to pay tax which go towards life saving operations, Christians shouldn't have to pay taxes which go towards scientific investigation into the theory of evolution. If we were all to pick and choose what taxes we pay, the state of our countries would be a right state.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
That being said, elective medical procedures should not be state funded. That's the way I feel. Ones that are medically necessary to save the woman's life should be covered.

Originally posted by Creshosk
That's the way I feel. Ones that are medically necessary to save the woman's life should be covered.

How about procedures that could prevent a question from a lot of pain, emotional and physical damage in the future and could in the worst case scenario result in the death of the woman in question?

A pregnancy is not something to take lightly, even the nine months can screw up a lot. It's never good for a person to be pregnant if they don't want a child. The damage done to the woman economically speaking far outweighs the cost of an abortion.

Originally posted by Fishy
How about procedures that could prevent a question from a lot of pain, emotional and physical damage in the future and could in the worst case scenario result in the death of the woman in question?

A pregnancy is not something to take lightly, even the nine months can screw up a lot. It's never good for a person to be pregnant if they don't want a child. The damage done to the woman economically speaking far outweighs the cost of an abortion.

Boo...Hoo...Hoo.

Using that logic, nearly all medical procedures should/could be free. Have a small penis and it's causing you stress? The Gov will pay for and enlarging! Got yourself a stupid tattoo when you were drunk? The Gov will pay to have it removed! Born with a birthmark and you're self conscious about it? The Gov will pay for that too!

Originally posted by Fishy
How about procedures that could prevent a question from a lot of pain, emotional and physical damage in the future and could in the worst case scenario result in the death of the woman in question?

A pregnancy is not something to take lightly, even the nine months can screw up a lot. It's never good for a person to be pregnant if they don't want a child. The damage done to the woman economically speaking far outweighs the cost of an abortion. Pssh, you make it sound like I'm pro-life or something.

Naw, its just that its a surgery that's not needed to save a person's life, then it is an elective or optional surgery. As was said earlier, cosmetic surgery shouldn't be covered, but corrective surgery that could save a person's life should.

Spin it however you want a pregnancy is not a major life threatening travesty.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I have to help pay for the maintenance of roads that I do not use, and the public education of children that I do not have, and a war that I do not support. Too bad.

Again, maintenance of roads help the economy. Educating children helps to increase a more educated society.

So, you're wrong. It's not TOO BAD.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's good for you, but why should your reasoning not apply to that.

Who supports the war pays for it, those who don't....don't.





Why are you and the others continue to shift this into a war debate?

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Again, maintenance of roads help the economy. Educating children helps to increase a more educated society.

So, you're wrong. It's not TOO BAD.



Why are you and the others continue to shift this into a war debate? Abortion has upsides too.




Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
wrong thread, dummy.

Not really.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Why are you and the others continue to shift this into a war debate?

Because it's an argument closely concerning taxes, people have to pay taxes for things they don't agree with. Yet, this argument is still given by people who do not want abortion to be publicly funded.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Abortion has upsides too.






Not really. yes, in fact it is. look at the title, dummy.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Because it's an argument closely concerning taxes, people have to pay taxes for things they don't agree with. Yet, this argument is still given by people who do not want abortion to be publicly funded. So you're attempting to justify one wrong with another?

Isn't that a bit "et tu" fallacy ish? hmm

Or do you secretly support the war and so are attempting to justify the tax money spent on the war?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
yes, in fact it is. look at the title, dummy.

I did, it is "Public Funding for Abortion". Your sympathy does still not matter in the law making process.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I did, it is "Public Funding for Abortion". Your sympathy does still not matter in the law making process. Pssh, you're not really familiar with the American law making process are you?

Yeah its horridable but people's feelings get in the way of reason all the time in the law making process. Otherwise wouldn't gay marriage already be a reality over here?

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Again, maintenance of roads help the economy. Educating children helps to increase a more educated society.

So, you're wrong. It's not TOO BAD.

Abortion procedures save the lives of women, and save their children and families from living in abject poverty. So, you are wrong. Too bad.




Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Why are you and the others continue to shift this into a war debate?

Why do you not have an answer as to why people who are opposed to war should be forced to fund it, while people who are opposed to abortions should not likewise be forced to fund them?

Originally posted by Creshosk
Pssh, you're not really familiar with the American law making process are you?

Yeah its horridable but people's feelings get in the way of reason all the time in the law making process. Otherwise wouldn't gay marriage already be a reality over here?

Well, his sympathy does matter in a way I suppose. As he can vote. But not fully, as...well, there are other laws laid down that prevent idiots from screwing up too bad.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
100% of American taxpayers are funding a war that less than 40% of Americans support. How is this any different?

Because if 60% of america didn't pay for the war then thousands of soldiers would die because they didn't get the body armor they needed or the right weapons or whatnot.

It's the exact same reason there are politicians who are against the war yet vote to continue funding it. Because when you stop funding the war the only people you're hurting are the men and women out there fighting.

Oh and I don't think I should have to pay for welfare either

The more Redneck soldiers die the better, it's the governments fault taking their country to war.

Originally posted by The Grey Fox
The more Redneck soldiers die the better, it's the governments fault taking their country to war.

*Holds self back from kicking the crap out of Grey Fox*

That's The Grey Fox to you, my man.

Originally posted by The Grey Fox
That's The Grey Fox to you, my man. And everyone else.

Grey Fox is another user who while makes snide remarks about certain people with a different genetic structure from his, is generally from what I've seen a good guy.

That pretty much sums me up!

Originally posted by The Grey Fox
That pretty much sums me up!

Not you, this guy:
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=38280

Originally posted by The Grey Fox
The more Redneck soldiers die the better, it's the governments fault taking their country to war.

wow...

in a strange way, this might be correct, seeing as:

1) in a democracy the government is run by the people
2) the government went to war
3) (1) + (2) the people went to war

so it sounds like you are the first anti-war critic to actually take responsability for your involvement in the war in Iraq.

Good for you!

Originally posted by Creshosk
Not you, this guy:
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=38280

KK.

Originally posted by The Grey Fox
The more Redneck soldiers die the better, it's the governments fault taking their country to war. crazysign

Originally posted by The Grey Fox
The more Redneck soldiers die the better, it's the governments fault taking their country to war.

looks like somebody wants attention

Originally posted by Grimm22
Because if 60% of america didn't pay for the war then thousands of soldiers would die because they didn't get the body armor they needed or the right weapons or whatnot.

It's the exact same reason there are politicians who are against the war yet vote to continue funding it. Because when you stop funding the war the only people you're hurting are the men and women out there fighting.

Oh and I don't think I should have to pay for welfare either

But then thousands of people would die because they didn't get the medication they needed.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I did, it is "Public Funding for Abortion". Your sympathy does still not matter in the law making process. the title is asking if it is ok for abortion to be publicly funded, not if abortion is morally right or wrong.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
the title is asking if it is ok for abortion to be publicly funded, not if abortion is morally right or wrong.

And? I used it as an argument.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And? I used it as an argument. and you went totally off topic.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
and you went totally off topic.

No, I didn't your stupid little "that's a different topic blah blah" went off-topic, by not replying to my point that your sympathy does not really count in the law making process of taxes...it was very much on topic. Stop dodging.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, I didn't your stupid little "that's a different topic blah blah" went off-topic, by not replying to my point that your sympathy does not really count in the law making process of taxes...it was very much on topic. Stop dodging. dodging....nice try.


tell me, whats the name of this thread?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
dodging....nice try.


tell me, whats the name of this thread?

"Public Funding for Abortion". For the second time.


Now either reply to my point, that though you might not have sympathy for them it is not a valid argument in political discourse or shut up.

Originally posted by Bardock42
"Public Funding for Abortion". For the second time.


Now either reply to my point, that though you might not have sympathy for them it is not a valid argument in political doscourse or shut up. what does my not having sympathy for a woman who gets knocked up by accident have to do with the public paying for her abortion? another thing, where would this public funding come from?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
what does my not having sympathy for a woman who gets knocked up by accident have to do with the public paying for her abortion? another thing, where would this public funding come from? The first was my question, yes.

To the second...from the tax payers.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The first was my question, yes.

To the second...from the tax payers. I asked you a question, please read again.

the taxpayers. CORRECT. you and me. so you wouldn't have a problem paying more taxes just so some chick you dont even know can have an abortion?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I asked you a question, please read again.

the taxpayers. CORRECT. you and me. so you wouldn't have a problem paying more taxes just so some chick you dont even know can have an abortion?

You idiot asked me the same question I asked you without answering it.

I'm not for the public funding of anything. But if you don't agree with paying for abortion then I don't see why you can agree with paying for a war in a foreign country.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You idiot asked me the same question I asked you without answering it.

I'm not for the public funding of anything. But if you don't agree with paying for abortion then I don't see why you can agree with paying for a war in a foreign country. hey, I never said I supported the war effort, only that I sympathized for the troops that are forced to be over there.

again....paying for war, paying for abortion.....two different things entirely.

Originally posted by Grimm22

And even if you're pro-choice, do you actually believe that abortions should be publicly funded?!?

xav_GYKie2w&mode

Originally posted by AngryManatee
xav_GYKie2w&mode dood.....you are a sick sick man.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
hey, I never said I supported the war effort, only that I sympathized for the troops that are forced to be over there.

again....paying for war, paying for abortion.....two different things entirely.

Well, I agree in a way...though I think the arguments that people bring can be applied to both.

Originally posted by Grimm22
Because if 60% of america didn't pay for the war then thousands of soldiers would die because they didn't get the body armor they needed or the right weapons or whatnot.

It's the exact same reason there are politicians who are against the war yet vote to continue funding it. Because when you stop funding the war the only people you're hurting are the men and women out there fighting.

Oh and I don't think I should have to pay for welfare either

If exceptions cannot be made for war, then why should exceptions be made for abortion?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If exceptions cannot be made for war, then why should exceptions be made for abortion? Because if we dont go to war, we lose our title as the worlds superpower. the USA is indeed the lost powerful country in the world, and to keep it this way, we must flex our might.

think of the world as a huge playground, and the USA as the playground bully.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Because if we dont go to war, we lose our title as the worlds superpower. the USA is indeed the lost powerful country in the world, and to keep it this way, we must flex our might.

think of the world as a huge playground, and the USA as the playground bully.
No, we'd just lose our title as the world's jackass.

Originally posted by StyleTime
No, we'd just lose our title as the world's jackass. jackass...bully....same stuff.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Because if we dont go to war, we lose our title as the worlds superpower. the USA is indeed the lost powerful country in the world, and to keep it this way, we must flex our might.

think of the world as a huge playground, and the USA as the playground bully.

That reason is not good enough.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
That reason is not good enough. didnt say I believed it, just stating fact.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If exceptions cannot be made for war, then why should exceptions be made for abortion?

Because war involves the entire country.

Abortion involves individuals.

Originally posted by Grimm22
Because war involves the entire country.

Abortion involves individuals.

all policy, foreign and domestic, involves the whole country and directly involves those...directly involved. by your logic i can say that the war doesnt involve me since i am neither a soldier nor chickenhawk draftdodging neocon politician.

you are convoluding the premise for each case to suit your point (lack of)

Originally posted by Schecter
all policy, foreign and domestic, involves the whole country and directly involves those...directly involved. by your logic i can say that the war doesnt involve me since i am neither a soldier nor chickenhawk draftdodging neocon politician.

you are convoluding the premise for each case to suit your point (lack of)

No, my point is that war affects everyone, even if you don't know it. If we simply stopped funding the military, what's too stop the enemies of America from attacking?

You may disagree with what the funding is being used FOR, but the funding itself is not the problem

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
didnt say I believed it, just stating fact.

And the award "Most stupid statement ever stated" goes to..............





Oh the suspense is killing me...

Originally posted by Bardock42
And the award "Most stupid statement ever stated" goes to..............





Oh the suspense is killing me... so it's not a fact that the states flexes their might, that they must do so in order to remain the world's superpower?

and what's wrong with me not condoning it? Get your head outta your arse and read my posts more carefully. statement one is true. and me not condoning it kinda goes hand in hand with not supporting the war effort, which YOU and several other members have stated believing.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
so it's not a fact that the states flexes their might, that they must do so in order to remain the world's superpower?

and what's wrong with me not condoning it? Get your head outta your arse and read my posts more carefully. statement one is true. and me not condoning it kinda goes hand in hand with not supporting the war effort, which YOU and several other members have stated believing. That's not what you said, moron.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not what you said, moron. then why dont you refresh our memory? instead of hurling insults. oh, thats right, thats all you have.

Originally posted by Grimm22
No, my point is that war affects everyone, even if you don't know it.


Same with abortion apparently. At least when you argue against it being legal.

Originally posted by Grimm22
If we simply stopped funding the military, what's too stop the enemies of America from attacking?


Having a military and being separated from everyone that wants you harm by the two biggest oceans of the world

Originally posted by Grimm22
You may disagree with what the funding is being used FOR, but the funding itself is not the problem

What? I hope I misunderstood really everything you said, because it either makes no sense at all or ...nah, that's the only possibility.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
then why dont you refresh our memory? instead of hurling insults. oh, thats right, thats all you have.

You said it was a fact and then that you didn't believe in it. That's idiotic.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not what you said, moron. waiting.....

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
waiting.....

Self inflicted I might add.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Self inflicted I might add. thats just what I thought. all bark, no bite.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
thats just what I thought. all bark, no bite.

It's going to be really funny when you find out that I already answered and you just missed it.

Originally posted by Bardock42









You said it was a fact and then that you didn't believe in it. That's idiotic. OOPS....

Something can be fact and not be believed in by an individual. let me ask you this. whats the most followed religion in the world?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
OOPS....

Something can be fact and not be believed in by an individual. let me ask you this. whats the most followed religion in the world?

Christianity.


But that's not the point. Someone should not think something is a fact and still not believe it. That's stupid. Seeing how the person actually believes it is a fact.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Christianity.


But that's not the point. Someone should not think something is a fact and still not believe it. That's stupid. Seeing how the person actually believes it is a fact. totally the point. you are not christian, so you dont believe in it, but it is a fact that it is the largest organized religion in the world.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
totally the point. you are not christian, so you dont believe in it, but it is a fact that it is the largest organized religion in the world.

I believe that it is the largest religion though.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I believe that it is the largest religion though. and that is a fact. and you dont believe in it. see?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
totally the point. you are not christian, so you dont believe in it, but it is a fact that it is the largest organized religion in the world.

wrong. maybe catholicism, but christianity as a whole is not an organised religion

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
and that is a fact. and you dont believe in it. see? No, I do believe in it.

It is a fact afterall.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, I do believe in it.

It is a fact afterall. you believe it is the largest religion, or you are a follower?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
you believe it is the largest religion, or you are a follower?

I am not a follower, because the Religion is not a fact. You realize it is not the same thing. Poor analogy.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am not a follower, because the Religion is not a fact. You realize it is not the same thing. Poor analogy. there you go, twisting my words again. it is a fact that it is the largest religion, nimrod.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
there you go, twisting my words again. it is a fact that it is the largest religion, nimrod.

Never denied that.

Enough of your idiocy now.


Back to something more on topic.

Why is the argument "I don't want to pay for it" applicable to Public Funded Abortion, but not aggressive wars waged by my country?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Never denied that.

Enough of your idiocy now.


Back to something more on topic.

Why is the argument "I don't want to pay for it" applicable to Public Funded Abortion, but not aggressive wars waged by my country? bowing out, i see. nice form.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
bowing out, i see. nice form.

No. I made my point clear. We are just repeating our arguments...anyone that reads it got them by now. If you got a killer great argument you can bring it up.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No. I made my point clear. We are just repeating our arguments...anyone that reads it got them by now. If you got a killer great argument you can bring it up. I just closed our argument.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I just closed our argument.

Yeah, should be really hard to click on it again.


Either way, why don't you answer my question?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, should be really hard to click on it again.


Either way, why don't you answer my question? ask again.

Why is the argument "I don't want to pay for it" applicable to Public Funded Abortion, but not aggressive wars waged by my country?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why is the argument "I don't want to pay for it" applicable to Public Funded Abortion, but not aggressive wars waged by my country? thread title.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
thread title.
It's on topic. It questions the validity of one of the major arguments of one of the sides.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's on topic. It questions the validity of one of the major arguments of one of the sides. its reaching, thats all.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
its reaching, thats all. Can you answer it now, please.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Can you answer it now, please. its a BS question, and I already answered it.