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

Originally posted by Nephthys
TBH it was pretty obvious where DMB's leanings were even if he pretended to be more neutral than he really was.

PB, AP and Nep are like those old school racists that believe having even one drop one drop of non-white blood makes you a ______

Just replace drop of blood with agreeing with one political opinion and ______ with right-wing.

Yeah it's basically a purity spiral. If you don't agree with intersectional identity politics then you're automatically on the right.

Judgementally judging someone as judgemental.....

Intriguing.

Well you're judgmentally judging someone as being judgmentally judgmental about someone else being judgmental.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Well you're judgmentally judging someone as being judgmentally judgmental about someone else being judgmental.

Judgeception!

A judgement within a judgement within a judgement...

So much judgement in this thread.

Strange.

Isn’t allowing ppl to identify how they wish an LGBT thing? Isn’t assuming someone’s identity bad? Isn’t insisting upon someone’s identity even worse?

Very strange.

They do tend to get Pissy when you stray off the Approved Letters List.

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

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.

Anyone wanna address this?

I was under the impression taxpayer money was given to planned parenthood

PP does get a good deal of govt money, they just don't use any of it for abortions.

Originally posted by Nibedicus

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.

That's a fair outlook to have. Though I would argue that analyzing the reasons why abortions in the United States are at such high numbers should also be a step taken: as finding a solution to eliminate the need for abortions would go a long way in promoting positive living environment for the persons involved.

As far as outside civilian responsibilities, I pretty sure that there would be some type of payment regardless of the outcome.

I'm not really into gender politics for a reason, as long as what someone is calling themself and doing isn't hurting someone. It's not an issue. I really think it's only a problem because of bigots. Many things are a much bigger issue, and the biggest, even bigger the racial inequality. Will always be poverty.

Originally posted by Silent Master
PP does get a good deal of govt money, they just don't use any of it for abortions.

They still should not get subsidized by the taxpayer if they donate millions of dollars to democrats.

It depends on how you look at it, while they don't specifically use the government money on abortions, them getting the money allows them to use their other non-govt funding on abortions.

Originally posted by Silent Master
It depends on how you look at it, while they don't specifically use the government money on abortions, them getting the money allows them to use their other non-govt funding on abortions.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
They still should not get subsidized by the taxpayer if they donate millions of dollars to democrats.

If corporations are people, and money is speech, then why do you hate the First Amendment?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If corporations are people, and money is speech, then why do you hate the First Amendment?

So does you’re logic applies to the 2nd amendment too?

So the next time you call for the appeal of the 2nd, I can use you’re own reasoning to prove a point then?