Jared and Ivanka offered Planned Parenthood a 'bribe' to stop abortions

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Despite claiming to be neutral, only supporting abortion in instances of rape and the health or life of the mother is a Pro-Life position. And it reveals the disengenuousness thereof: they purport to be about principle, but are willing to compromise that principle so as to not appear ideologically extreme. He unwittingly admitted their true position, which is that women should face consequences for getting pregnant, even though they do not have to.

Oh, the black and white position. He certainly didn't seem to be about principle just about tax dollars.

Abortion is not funded by taxpayers. However, most women who seek abortion services are living at or below the federal poverty level. Carrying the pregnancy to term would result in a cost to tax payers in the form of social programs, whereas terminating the pregnancy would cost the tax payers nothing, and would actually be a net savings. So if that is his metric, it is a complete failure.

I didn't say he was correct, abortions are expensive for those in poverty. It isn't a free ride for them.

With that said Planned Parenthood does have a number of services available for pregnancy prevention and those in poverty on medicaid can get different contraceptives to prevent the expensive cost of abortions.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
His argument is perverse. If it was about the sanctity of life, then he would not permit abortion under any circumstances.

False Dichotomy. You can view life sanctimoniously but still realize it's stupid as f*ck to force a rape victim to raise a rape baby or force a mother to die (possibly killing both the baby and the mother).

"Life is precious but I am not a heartless bastard."

Sheesh, even us pro-lifer Mormons agree abortion is acceptable in certain circumstances.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Instead, he outright admits that it is about making women suffer consequences, even though abortion is a completely legal and valid alternative.

Why are you focusing on the woman so much? Why is a white man so concerned with a woman's uterus? Hmmmmm? Seems both parties will be responsible for that baby, not just the woman, under the law.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
[list=1][*]Abortion is not funded by taxpayers. However, most women who seek abortion services are living at or below the federal poverty level. Carrying the pregnancy to term would result in a cost to tax payers in the form of social programs, whereas terminating the pregnancy would cost the tax payers nothing, and would actually be a net savings. So if that is his metric, it is a complete failure.[/list]

Abortion should be paid for by taxpayers under a UHC solution. So should contraceptives.

Free contraceptives: far far far less abortions.

Seems like an easy choice for tax payer money...

Yet people can't make the Free and Easy Choice to keep it in their pants.

But then that is what the Nanny State is for. If you want a Nanny that kills all te babies that is.

Supported!

Originally posted by dadudemon
He's a chronic troll. He hasn't just been trolling KMC for years, his name shows up on other websites, too. He's....tame and harmless, actually. Don't let him get to you.

Yeah, was just hoping he would respond to a genuine request to debate or at least reasonable discussion when offered, and since he's not, figured he's not worth talking to. Easy enough to just put him on ignore, tho. 😛

Originally posted by wakkawakkawakka
While I do think the amount of abortions in the US is alarming, exactly how does eliminating a means of having a legal or safe one boasts better results? Wouldn't it be better to promote a means of living where the need of abortion is less likely?

As for the bribe thing, exactly what good does this actually do in the long term if it actually went through? If there are concerns about using federal funds for Planned Parenthood, then maybe we can find methods where citizens can set up a payment plan. Or alternatively look at exactly how much of citizens taxes are used as federal and device a budget that would solve such a tax burden.

The problem here is that there are people (such as myself) that see abortion as the actual taking of human life (and let's be honest, attempts to simply dehumanize the unborn has been based on some pretty weak logic). I mean, there are instances where abortion is medically necessary or done out of compassion for the mother (rape) where you will get little/no resistance from either side (of course, there will always be the extremes from either side who won't budge an inch) but the idea that we should just keep it legal because making it illegal may simply have questionable success in reducing the numbers is strange to me, I mean would making murder legal have no chance of increasing its numbers? Would making it illegal again reduce it? Logic dictates that making something illegal would reduce its numbers, not always the case but that should be the rule not the exception.

But in honesty, personally, I feel that we're too far gone to get a full illegalization of abortion. At most I just want to make it so that people who don't agree with it/don't want any part in it don't have to pay for it and to at least hope that it doesn't get any worse than it already is.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
There you have it, folks. It is not about protection, it is about punishment. It is not about the sanctity of life, it is about ensuring women face consequences for having unsanctioned sex.

Don’t twist my words to fuel your agenda.

What I said was pretty simple. I am not pro nor anti abortions, but I do believe in responsibilities. As an adult, you decides to have unprotected sex, no one forced you, so I shouldn’t have to pay to fix your mistake. Pretty simple.

Oh but he'll twist your words. He'll do what he can to maintain his conceptualization of the EEEEEVVVVIIIIIIIL right-wingers.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Oh but he'll twist your words. He'll do what he can to maintain his conceptualization of the EEEEEVVVVIIIIIIIL right-wingers.

Am not even a right-winger. If I had to give a party I lean in, it would be classic liberals. Especially once I began to listen to the like of Thomas Sowell.

1. Isn’t that still economically right-wing even if it’s not conservative?

2. Yeah well in his quest to demonize the right he demonizes any to the right of the progressives. Even when I was a center lefty he accused me of being an eeeevvviiiil right wing conservative

That isn’t meant to be a comment on all lefties here btw, I can have an honest political conversation with Lazybones or Robtard (despite the occasional friction between us), but you can’t have an honest conversation with someone like Adam whose interest is to impugn your moral character with the worst motivations he c an think up with some real mindreading (ie. When I was center left and he’s like “no you’re secretly right wing!” Or when you say you don’t wanna subsidize abortions for people’s sexual irresponsibility and he goes “you’re secretly pro-life and want women to suffer for having sex!”

Originally posted by Emperordmb
No you ****nut, he said he shouldn't have to subsidize abortion for bad decision making. He didn't say it should be illegal. Are you blind?

I wasn't aware you're a mind reader who can sniff out his true policy positions and intentions.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Oh, the black and white position. He certainly didn't seem to be about principle just about tax dollars.

Originally posted by SquallX
Don’t twist my words to fuel your agenda.

What I said was pretty simple. I am not pro nor anti abortions, but I do believe in responsibilities. As an adult, you decides to have unprotected sex, no one forced you, so I shouldn’t have to pay to fix your mistake. Pretty simple.

Yet, no federal tax dollars have gone to abortion services ever. So why raise a non-issue?

Because it is emblematic of his larger objection, which is that of personal responsibility, and making sure that women "pay for their own mistakes." His own words belie the defense you are trying to make for him.

As I pointed out previously, if it was truly about not burdening the taxpayer, then A.) he would not have raised the objection in the first place because none of his federal tax dollars have or do pay for abortions, and B.) he would support abortion because it actually reduces the burden on the tax payers.

That he did A. and not B., demonstrates that it is not about the allocation of tax money at all.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yet, no federal tax dollars have gone to abortion services ever. So why raise a non-issue?

Because it is emblematic of his larger objection, which is that of personal responsibility, and making sure that women "pay for their own mistakes." His own words belie the defense you are trying to make for him.

As I pointed out previously, if it was truly about not burdening the taxpayer, then A.) he would not have raised the objection in the first place because none of his federal tax dollars have or do pay for abortions, and B.) he would support abortion because it actually reduces the burden on the tax payers.

That he did A. and not B., demonstrates that it is not about the allocation of tax money at all.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
That isn’t meant to be a comment on all lefties here btw, I can have an honest political conversation with Lazybones or Robtard (despite the occasional friction between us), but you can’t have an honest conversation with someone like Adam whose interest is to impugn your moral character with the worst motivations he c an think up with some real mindreading (ie. When I was center left and he’s like “no you’re secretly right wing!” Or when you say you don’t wanna subsidize abortions for people’s sexual irresponsibility and he goes “you’re secretly pro-life and want women to suffer for having sex!”

Yet, you are right wing now. So I was entirely right about you. If you are to be believed, then I was aware of your political leanings before you were.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yet, you are right wing now. So I was entirely right about you. If you are to be believed, then I was aware of your political leanings before you were.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yet, you are right wing now. So I was entirely right about you. If you are to be believed, then I was aware of your political leanings before you were.

You were accusing me of being right-wing at a time when I wasn't right-wing, you don't get to say you were correct about my positions at that time because I later became right wing.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Not really because my political stances were different at the time. I was fully on board with left-wing economic policy when you accused me of being an eeevvvviiiiil right-winger.

You were accusing me of being right-wing at a time when I wasn't right-wing, you don't get to say you were correct about my positions at that time because I later became right wing.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Not really because my political stances were different at the time. I was fully on board with left-wing economic policy when you accused me of being an eeevvvviiiiil right-winger.

You were accusing me of being right-wing at a time when I wasn't right-wing, you don't get to say you were correct about my positions at that time because I later became right wing.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
adampoe saw into your heart and now you’re frightened.

As I am oft to say, "You may be new to me, but I am not new to people." I see through all this facile bullshit.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE

That he did A. and not B., demonstrates that it is not about the allocation of tax money at all.

I didn't say he was correct, abortions are expensive for those in poverty. It isn't a free ride for them.

With that said Planned Parenthood does have a number of services available for pregnancy prevention and those in poverty on Medicaid can get different contraceptives to prevent the expensive cost of abortions.

In the current state of affairs, I'm for UHC (which should cover abortions and contraceptives.)

Because it is emblematic of his larger objection, which is that of personal responsibility, and making sure that women "pay for their own mistakes." His own words belie the defense you are trying to make for him.

I don't need to make a defence for him, I just don't feel the need to stand on a soapbox to preach back to those preaching.