Mitt Romney for President - Page 8

Boo hoo. We are actually being forced to subsidize abortions through every wicked scheme your secular compatriots can dream up. Whether it's government cheques straight to Planned Parenthood, 'health care mandates' from the White House to our ministries or something else.

When secular nutbars decide to pay out of their own pockets for their child-killing exploits, then we can discuss taxing the property of organizations that run the overwhelming majority of our society's food banks, homeless shelters and recovery programs.

Defunding Planned Parenthood would just lead to more abortions. If you wanted to actually limit them, you wouldn't oppose real, effective sex education--not this abstinence-only garbage. If you actually wanted to limit them, you wouldn't oppose free contraception for everyone. Until you admit those two points, you can go cry me a river and I won't give a shit. Religious sex-negative policies cause abortions. Eat it.

It's no surprise atheists believe people are prisoners to sexuality and so cannot control themselves or account personally for their behaviour.
It's the whole reason you cling to the Theory of Evolution like it's a security blanket.

All I'm saying is that if you want to live that way - with lifestyles built around abortion and contraception and the like - pay the bills for it yourself.
Don't ask me to pay for your abortions. Don't ask me to buy you birth control pills.

Is it really that hard to respect your fellow citizens?

I have never read such a ridiculous string of words in my life. Attempting to interpret this drivel literally gave me a headache.


If you want to reduce abortions, you can do so by helping to teach proper sex education and make contraception easily accessible. Shaming sex, lying to kids about it, and limiting access to birth control is what LEADS to unwanted pregnancies--and abortions.

Nonsense. The high rate of abortion is a direct result of the so-called "sexual revolution" that began in the 60's. Ours is the first generation in modern times to discard traditional morality wholesale and embrace the foolish ideas that have sunk our countries to a level from which they may never fully recover.

It has brought us family breakdowns, trapping women and children in poverty and having whole generations raised without fathers. Drug use, consequently, has skyrocketed. Sexually transmitted diseases are rampant and abortion has eliminated millions of North Americans from existence (and damaged national social programs in the process.)

But you would have people believe that the architects of this debacle should be entrusted with hundreds of millions of taxpayers dollars to fix the problem they helped create. Even if they wished to fix it - and they are too busy getting rich off it to do so - teaching children that sex is merely a recreational activity the effects of which can be mitigated by abortion and birth control will only serve to damage society further.

Well, clearly you won't listen to reason. Should have known that by now.

By the way, the leading cause of abortion is...YOUR GOD...


WHY DOES YOUR GOD KILL UP TO 50% OF ALL CONCEIVED HUMANS?
HOW CAN YOU WORSHIP SUCH A MASS MURDERER?

Stop ducking the issue with silly questions.

If liberals believe in abortion and birth control so much, why can't they pay for them out of their own money?

Why do you demand they be paid for by people who fundamentally disagree with the practices?

Why is that a silly question? If all life starts at conception...and it's totally sacred...and yet, up to 50% of conceived children are spontaneously aborted (by the hand of god, if you truly believe your mythology--everything happens for a reason and such nonsense, god's plan, et cetera). That makes your god a mass murderer. It is YOU who is ducking the question. Why do you worship a deity responsible for the mass murder of BILLIONS?

This isn't an abortion thread. Abortion and contraception are raised in the context of the violation of personal conscience by forcing certain taxpayers to pay for things they find morally objectionable.

For at least the fourth time now I am asking you, why can liberals not pay for abortion and birth control out of their own money? Why should religious taxpayers be forced to pay for things they find morally objectionable?

How can you talk about conscience when your deity MURDERS BILLIONS OF INNOCENT BABIES?

Sometimes in a person's life an abortion must be necessary.This happened in my wife life years and could not be avoided.

*waits*

*doesn't hold breath waiting*

Being offended is not a good reason to make an exemption in the law. Period.


But...all this IDIOTIC argument is moot with the compromise that President Obama proposed anyway. The fragile religious employer wankers don't have to pay for contraception. But you won't be happy until we have a theocracy anyway...

Perhaps not. Though liberals have made that an art form over the years. That hypocrisy aside...

Under what legitimate constitutional authority does the federal government implement such mandates or take money from some to pay for abortions for others?

Do you mean birth control? The Federal Government doesn't pay for any abortions. Well maybe when an intern gets on the wrong end of a congressman...

Just as soon as wartards pay for the pre-emptive overseas military action (which is no more constitutionally mandated than birth control). I find the wars overseas morally objectionable. Can I opt out of paying for that?

Does the federal government provide funding to Planned Parenthood?

OK. So we all agree. The federal government is evil and most of what it is doing is unconstitutional and morally objectionable. Maybe we should significantly reduce it to its strict constitutional limits (which would be about 1/10th of its current size and scope).

The simple maintenance of justice, or natural law, is plainly the one only purpose for which any coercive poweror anything bearing the name of governmenthas a right to exist. Lysander Spooner

Lawmakers, as they call themselves, might just as well claim the right to abolish, by statute, the natural law of gravitation, the natural laws of light, heat, and electricity, and all the other natural laws of matter and mind, and institute laws of their own in the place of them, and compel conformity to them, as to claim the right to set aside the natural law of justice, and compel obedience to such other laws as they may see fit to manufacture, and set up in its stead. Lysander Spooner

Your words (and those of your fairy-tale worshiping brethren) about the first amendment wouldn't ring SO FUCKING HOLLOW if you didn't make such a huge stink about the Muslim Community Center in NYC.

Instead of trying to misdirect with this excuse, why don't you deal with those who did not?

We humans might claim the right to abolish gravity or the laws of physics, yet we cannot. They exist independently of us and we have to abide by them whether we like it or not.

Not so the the laws governing human affairs. We humans can break them and even abolish them if we so choose because we are the ones who make them.

Which is why Spooner’s whole tirade is wrong.

And once religious people don't contribute to the common good anymore when it comes to responsibly preventing abortions through easy access to contraceptives, the next step is to what, outlaw contraceptives altogether?

What? This is an invalid slippery slope argument? I wish it were...

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2012/02...rtion-seekers/

Oops, Virginia is ready to ban contraceptives. This after they already MANDATED THE RAPE OF WOMEN WHO WANT ABORTIONS by requiring an unnecessary medical procedure that involves JAMMING A DEVICE INTO THE WOMAN'S VAGINA, EVEN IF SHE NOR THE DOCTOR WANT IT TO HAPPEN in order to get the abortion.

Give religion an inch...

Must you always SHOUT BR?



Give it a rest.

Someone has to shout out against these atrocities against women.

Well, your hyperbole aside, I respect your concern about state-sponsored (or allowed) aggression against women.

Sadly, you appear to be inconsistent and even hypocritical in your outrage about state-sponsored or state-allowed aggression by limiting your concern to only one form of it against one group.

Additionally, your apparent willingness to ignore the possibility and even probability of personhood of a currently unborn child and support allowing aggression against them while cleansing your conscience by calling it something not fully human (you're in good company with slave owners and Nazis here) and simply a matter of choice makes your outrage seem even more ludicrous and hypocritical.

Except the notion that something is a fully fledged human being once sperm meets egg is ludicrous in and of itself. You are begging the question that your definition of human life is the correct one.

And you are that yours is. Unfortunately for you a more objectively determined answer is actually on my side.

P.S. I never said "fully fledged" human being. But that doesn't mean it is not a human life of its own.

Prove it.

Well there's lots to look it.

This new life form is fully human. It has its own unique human DNA (different from but derived from the parents). Genetically it is human and a different living entity than the mother or father.

It is also living. It is growing. Within a very short period of time more perceptible indications of its humanness will be clear such as its organs more develop.

If un-aborted it will grow into what we commonly call a human being...not something else.

The labels you abortion-supporters like to use to cleanse your consciences (e.g., zygote, fetus, etc.) are simply labels and descriptions for different stages of the development of a human being. Just like "baby" is a very small human being and "toddler" is another phase of development and maturity...both of which are dependent on someone other then themselves for their continued existence...but I don't see you or anyone calling for legitimizing the murder of anyone under the age of, say 7-8 years old...or those who are mentally or physically handicapped.

Your turn: Prove that this living being inside a woman's womb is not human.

I think you are confusing "laws" with natural "rights". Our rights do not come from government. They are inherent and inalienable.

As Frederic Bastiat so eloquently stated:

"Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place."

And yet it is a clump of only a few cells at that point. It must parasitically feed off its host in order to grow.


Ambiguous, vague timeframe of an ambiguous concept. Details are required to support this nebulous statement.


Not true. 30% to 50% of pregnancies are aborted by your god (in reality, it's called spontaneous abortion because god isn't real) before the end of the first trimester. Your assertion that it will grow into a human is untrue. (And your god is a baby killer in your fantasy worldview. Hey, if you thank him for the good shit, why is he not responsible for the bad shit?)


Nope, you did not meet your burden.

And a baby outside the womb also must depend on others in order to live and grow. To be consistent, you should advocate the permission to murder these humans if they are unwanted.

Of course, as usual, you conveniently ignored the question about those who are born but are mentally or physically handicapped in such as way that they must "parasitically feed off" of someone in order to continue living.


These stages are well documented. I'm sure you can find them. At this point you're feigning (I'm giving benefit of the doubt) ignorance.



...not due to deliberate human action...


As I said, un-aborted...it will grow into what we commonly refer to as a human being. It will not grow into something else now will it? These abortions can happen as a result of a natural causes. Nothing lives forever. Somethings die very soon after they have begin life. Some things live much longer. Sometimes the end of life is caused by deliberate human action. In most cases we call the deliberate ending of a human life murder. But, to cleanse your conscience, you call one form of this "abortion."

You're reasoning is quite scary actually. It basically amounts to this: "If some percentage of this living entity does not live long enough to mature to some (arbitrary) level, then providing protection to the entire class is unnecessary." This coupled with the "If this living entity must depend on other living entities for its continued growth and life, it's murder is permissible." and you have the makings of a rather frightening moral framework. I can't wait until mental and emotional maturity (according to some elite emotionally and mentally mature minority of course) are factored into this equation.

You do realize that defining people is not-human has been the basis some of the greatest atrocities in history don't you?

Shows your complete and utter ignorance, once again. There are no "abortion inducing drugs" sold in the US. The "morning after pill" prevents pregnancy before implantation. It is incapable of causing an abortion.

I adressed Spooner who, in the quoted text, talked about laws. You can see it in the text you quoted above.


Isnt that from La Loi circa 1850?

Life exists independently of us, indeed it existed before humans appeared on this planet. We couldnt make laws if we werent alive.

Liberty is a notion we developed as part of our being a social intelligent life-form, probably at the same time we developed the notions of authority and law.

Property is a practical invention we devised to have a form of possession recognised and protected by law. Law is required for there to be property, without it theres only possession i e whatever one can make or seize and hold on to.

So Frédéric Bastiat was partially right.

He was saying that life, liberty, and property are natural laws just like gravity, that cannot legitimately be repealed or infringed by laws of man's invention.

These are inalienable rights that do not come from government or any other man. They were not invented by man. They simply are.

Freedom, then, is man's natural state. "Freedom" meaning the absence of aggression against an individual's natural rights to life, liberty, and property.

Any initiation of force on the part of any individual or group of individuals (even if that group of individuals calls themselves a government) which infringes upon that natural state is immoral and illegitimate.

Yes. How much of that funding is allowed to be used to fund abortions?

I'm surprised someone as intelligent as you appear to be on some topics doesn't realize money is fungible, a fact that makes the Hyde Amendment (along with claims that X money given to Y organization is not going to pay for Z activity) a joke.