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

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DIqE2tAXgAAgY3k.png

A quick URL image address each reveals this pic is hosted by of all places PBS.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DIqE2tAXgAAgY3k.png


NARAL


Creates Slush Fund and asks for Donations

Kind of a weird partnership, but if it helps women get terminations that they couldn't otherwise have access to, I'm not sure I see the issue.

Liberals: Using the misfortunes of others to raise money for the termination of human life, sounds great if you ask me

Originally posted by -Pr-
Kind of a weird partnership, but if it helps women get terminations that they couldn't otherwise have access to, I'm not sure I see the issue.

With everything going on I am not sure why abortions are a priority. Why is it they want to kill more people? Haven't enough died?

I understand things like food, water, and medicine, but I can't understand why surviving a natural disaster means people should also be giving you money so you can get an abortion. I can't see why they are more worthy of that than any other woman in the country who wants one but can't afford it.

Originally posted by Sable
Liberals: Using the misfortunes of others to raise money for the termination of human life, sounds great if you ask me

Originally posted by Surtur
With everything going on I am not sure why abortions are a priority. Why is it they want to kill more people? Haven't enough died?

I understand things like food, water, and medicine, but I can't understand why surviving a natural disaster means people should also be giving you money so you can get an abortion. I can't see why they are more worthy of that than any other woman in the country who wants one but can't afford it.

Well, obviously a large part of it is the difference of opinion in whether what gets aborted is a baby or person or whatever. I don't think it should be a priority though, no.

Do they not have medical plans for women to seek abortions at planned parenthood if they can't afford it?

Originally posted by -Pr-
Well, obviously a large part of it is the difference of opinion in whether what gets aborted is a baby or person or whatever. I don't think it should be a priority though, no.

Ah, but remember: if I go up and punch a pregnant woman in the stomach until she miscarries...I can be charged with murder lol. And nope, it's not something that could only be done to me if a woman is very far along in her pregnancy. Wacky, ain't it?



I sure as hell hope tax payer dollars do not go towards abortions. People on this board have assured me they do not.

A liberal democrat judge would prolly convinct you of murder, just to maintain their running double standard in check.

Originally posted by Surtur
Ah, but remember: if I go up and punch a pregnant woman in the stomach until she miscarries...I can be charged with murder lol. And nope, it's not something that could only be done to me if a woman is very far along in her pregnancy. Wacky, ain't it?



I sure as hell hope tax payer dollars do not go towards abortions. People on this board have assured me they do not.

Not quite sure that's really the same thing, but even if it was, that would just illustrate that you have some weird laws. Not much else.

Planned Parenthood occasionally does them, or does it not?

Originally posted by -Pr-
Not quite sure that's really the same thing, but even if it was, that would just illustrate that you have some weird laws. Not much else.

Eh? Either it's a person or it is not lol. If it's not a person it cannot be murdered.



I was under the impression you can pay for an abortion there, but not that they provide them for free. That would be insane if they truly thought tax payer dollars should be spent on abortions.

Originally posted by Surtur
Eh? Either it's a person or it is not lol. If it's not a person it cannot be murdered.



I was under the impression you can pay for an abortion there, but not that they provide them for free. That would be insane if they truly thought tax payer dollars should be spent on abortions.

Is it not more the case that some states treat the foetus as a person, while some don't? And I still think you're overly simplifying a more complex issue. The fact that you're attacking the woman adds a whole new dimension to it that wasn't there before.

I have nothing against tax money being used for that, but if you do, fair enough.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Is it not more the case that some states treat the foetus as a person, while some don't? And I still think you're overly simplifying a more complex issue. The fact that you're attacking the woman adds a whole new dimension to it that wasn't there before.

I know, and all I'm saying is the states that treat the fetus as a person are hypocritical to allow abortion in any situation other than when the mothers life is in danger or if we know the child would be born with major health problems. If we consider it a person...why does who takes the life matter? It gets to the point where you'd have to say momma has killing dibs. But how could that be, if it's a person?

But it is a tricky situation, isn't it? It's why it is interesting to ask such a question to people who are pro choice. It can tell you a lot about them imo.



Would you have any issues with tax money being used to get me a vasectomy?

Originally posted by Surtur
I know, and all I'm saying is the states that treat the fetus as a person are hypocritical to allow abortion in any situation other than when the mothers life is in danger or if we know the child would be born with major health problems. If we consider it a person...why does who takes the life matter? It gets to the point where you'd have to say momma has killing dibs. But how could that be, if it's a person?

But it is a tricky situation, isn't it? It's why it is interesting to ask such a question to people who are pro choice. It can tell you a lot about them imo.



Would you have any issues with tax money being used to get me a vasectomy?

Well would it not be better then, if states all got together and decided to all cooperate and find one definitive ruling to eliminate confusing situations like this?

Does it? What do you end up thinking about those people?

If I considered a vasectomy to be equivalent to an abortion, I might. But I don't.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Well would it not be better then, if states all got together and decided to all cooperate and find one definitive ruling to eliminate confusing situations like this?

Indeed it would. I don't care either way really I just want consistency. If it's a person then it is a person. If it's not a person then okay, it's not.



It depends on how they answer. If they stick to their guns and feel that killing a fetus is not murder...that is to be respected. If they feel they can pick or choose when something is or is not a person? That is quite arrogant and disturbing.



Why should tax payers foot the bill for an abortion, but not preventative procedures?

Originally posted by Surtur
Indeed it would. I don't care either way really I just want consistency. If it's a person then it is a person. If it's not a person then okay, it's not.



It depends on how they answer. If they stick to their guns and feel that killing a fetus is not murder...that is to be respected. If they feel they can pick or choose when something is or is not a person? That is quite arrogant and disturbing.



Why should tax payers foot the bill for an abortion, but not preventative procedures?

Agreed. Consistency would be a good thing.

I agree with that too.

I meant that I would have a strong opinion on it if I believed them equal. But I don't believe them equal, so I honestly dunno. I hadn't thought about it until you asked me.

Honestly though, I feel like we're straying away from the actual topic in to the topic of abortion itself, and there's already a thread for that.

As I said, I think it's a weird pairing, but I'm not opposed to women who want/need terminations to have them paid for by donation, as long as it doesn't divert money away from actual relief efforts.

I'm against taxpayer supported abortions. I myself am pro choice but forcing those who aren't to pay for a procedure that they consider to be immoral against their will is the equivalent of strong armed robbery.

As for the add itself... it's extremely distasteful but hey people are allowed to do distasteful things. I might sneer at those who are making the plea, but I wouldn't support any effort to shut down what they're doing.

Legality doesnt mean immorality should be tolerated by a civilized society.

Saying that PBS aided this is extremely misleading. The pbs.twimg addresses have to do with twitter themselves. Literally, every single picture that gets posted on twitter gets a pbs.twimg address. These are hosted by twitter, not pbs.

Fair enough. Doesn't make what NARAL is right. It's disgusting but I'm sure you will disagree on that as well.

I don't really care. If people want to donate to that that's their choice. Not my concern.

Ok

Sure.

Yeah it's bad enough that abortion is legal, we absolutely should not have it be taxpayer funded though.

And come on now, even if you are the staunchest abortion supporter...I think you can still acknowledge the insanity of this. "We need donations for abortions" after a natural disaster is something a crazy person thinks up.

But we treat it as normal lol. You can say you don't care if people wanna throw away money to this place and still acknowledge how this looks.