Congrats everybody! Your Tax dollars now paying for abortions

[JustRalph]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/26/ObamaCare-your-tax-dollars-fund-abortion

More detailed here

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/10/25/your-tax-dollars-will-fund-abortions-and-planned-parenthood-under-obamacare-heres-how/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+lifenews%2Fnewsfeed+%28LifeNe ws.com%29

http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Government/2012/Obamas/Obama-healer.png

[jballscalls]

would you rather pay for that or for the child for the next many years? Cause you're paying for one or the other

[johnhannibalsmith]

We kill innocent children now with my tax dollars looking for another Akbar Al-Aloser that will immediately be replaced by yet another Achmed Al-Alooney. At least one form of the two murder varieties I believe to be lawful... maybe even good for the country.

[iceknight]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/26/ObamaCare-your-tax-dollars-fund-abortion
[/IMG]blah blah blah big deal. The same tax dollars also paid for atomic bombing of two whole cities killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and many children including.. those same tax dollars also pay for routine bombings and killings in places where the US has oil interests... way to make a political issue of something that is a dual use - by and large women do not rush into getting abortions done. And it is also not a fun event for them just to be going around getting laid and then go get an abortion.

Also technically, even a miscarriage that occurs to a pregnant woman is medically termed as abortion - even when no procedure is applied. I see this more of a woman's reproductive health issue which the Republican party wants to get its nose into and reduce coverage, similar to how this issue may be handle in countries like Saudi etc. The US can make a choice in being a country that actually is "civilized" or...well maybe the US is not civilized compared to countries like Sweden/Western Europe etc.

[TJDave]

would you rather pay for that or for the child for the next many years?

And their children's children.

We'd be way ahead if they all got abortions in trade for an apartment and a food and clothing allowance. Throw in a set of tires and free trips to Vegas, too.

[FantasticDan]

blah blah blah big deal. The same tax dollars also paid for atomic bombing of two whole cities killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and many children including.. those same tax dollars also pay for routine bombings and killings in places where the US has oil interests...
Sounds like you're on the same page as this article:

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/206858/no-idiots-obamacare-doesnt-cover-abortions-but-it-damn-well-should/

[iceknight]

Sounds like you're on the same page as this article:

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/206858/no-idiots-obamacare-doesnt-cover-abortions-but-it-damn-well-should/ No I am not. I think you forgot to read my second paragraph.

[FantasticDan]

Your second paragraph is pretty much irrelevant to the article. All I meant was that both present the theme we don't get to pick and choose where our taxes go in accordance with our leanings and beliefs etc.

[TJDave]

we don't get to pick and choose where our taxes go in accordance with our leanings and beliefs etc.

Yes, we do.

How the country spends is determined by our elected representatives.

[Tom]

would you rather pay for that or for the child for the next many years? Cause you're paying for one or the other

I respectfully reject the idea that I have to pay kill babies.
Some people call that murder.
F*** what the SC says. Murder is murder.
Just because liberals have no decency and no morals doesn't mean I have to pay for their warped ideas.

This country is no longer deserving of any respect.

[Tom]

Yes, we do.

How the country spends is determined by our elected representatives.

Dan would have been happy in the Fatherland. :rolleyes:

[JustRalph]

The larger point is that it is already against the law. It was a key negotiating point in the passage of Obamacare. It's another end run around the law by what is rapidly becoming the most corrupt, secretive and plain unlawful admin to ever sit in the White House.

They break the law and either hide it, or obfuscate it in a manner in which no normal citizen would be able to detect it.

There are still moral people in this country who believe abortion is murder. They have as much right to feel safe in the laws of the country as the next guy. But obviously the Obama admin thinks differently.

Millions of people in this country believe that tax dollars are not used for abortions. We now discover due to a deliberate prevarication on the part of the President and his minions, the law is being willfully purposefully usurped in the name of a left wing toleration of what a majority of the country believes to be an immoral or illegal act.

Religiosity aside, they are breaking the damn law. Remember, "the rule of law" that was quoted to us several hundred times during the government shut down? It only matters when it favors the left.

Anybody who believes that paying for the abortion keeps our society from paying for a child on welfare over the next 20 years etc is ignoring some facts. Most notably the thousands of Americans who have thrived and survived and escaped poverty to go on to do big things. You ignore a life that has promise, no matter the circumstances. The chance to live and live a long and fruitful life is never the result of an abortion. It's instant death and killing against the most innocent among us. Btw, I am not 100% against abortion. But I "get it" when it comes to the facts above. There are exceptions to every rule. I subscribe to the bumper sticker theory that "it's not a choice, it's a baby"

[Tom]

Anybody who believes that paying for the abortion keeps our society from paying for a child on welfare over the next 20 years etc is ignoring some facts. Most notably the thousands of Americans who have thrived and survived and escaped poverty to go on to do big things.

Certainly not democrats! :eek:

[classhandicapper]

would you rather pay for that or for the child for the next many years? Cause you're paying for one or the other

Although accurate, we have what I call a band-aid society. Rather than fixing core problems, we put band-aids on them and look for the least bad of 2 bad options.

The way to start fixing this problem is to change the underlying morality and values in this country so it is no longer considered acceptable to be sleeping around with people indiscriminately, having children out of wedlock, having unsafe sex etc... It should be considered a positive to keep the child and put it up for adoption. Adoptive parents should be held in the highest possible regard.

We are never going to get unwanted pregnancies down to zero, but dismissing the underlying decline in our morality and turning this into an economic choice between abortion and raising welfare kids is not the right approach.

[delayjf]

We are never going to get unwanted pregnancies down to zero, but dismissing the underlying decline in our morality and turning this into an economic choice between abortion and raising welfare kids is not the right approach.

Let me start by saying I agree 100% with the above. Unfortunately, and I think you know this, it will never happen. Liberals are not about personal responsibility, they are about big Gov programs and hand outs. The "if it feels good" liberals distain for any kind of moral code or renaissance is obvious with their assault on anything with a Christian religious connotation. Hence their support of aborts, gay rights, etc.

Out of practicality, I would personally support free or cheap contraceptives, ie make birth control and the morning after pill OTC. But if after that, they still get pregnant, let them pay for their own abortion.

blah blah blah big deal. The same tax dollars also paid for atomic bombing of two whole cities killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and many children including.. those same tax dollars also pay for routine bombings and killings in places where the US has oil interests... way to make a political issue of something that is a dual use - by and large women do not rush into getting abortions done. And it is also not a fun event for them just to be going around getting laid and then go get an abortion.

Out of practicality, I would personally support free or cheap contraceptives, ie make birth control and the morning after pill OTC. But if after that, they still get pregnant, let them pay for their own abortion. It find it amazing that liberals / Progressive are so quick to kill innocent children to save tax dollars, but opposed executing convicted mass murders. Hundreds of thousands died in the atomic attacks on Japan don’t compare in numbers to how many abortions are performed each year.

With regards to using the Atomic bomb - I'm sure I don't need to remind you that we were at War and that the Japanese were not exactly boy scouts in their treatment of the countries they conquered. We drop bombs on terrorist in the Mid East because that's where they are. If they would all move to Somalia, I'm sure we would be happy to reposition our drones, to attack them there.

Europe is morally decadent; I'm amazed that Liberals tend to define the moral decline of society as "Progressive".

[LottaKash]

I'm amazed that Liberals tend to define the moral decline of society as "Progressive"[/b].

Well said Delay ( all of it)...:ThmbUp:

I find the "baby killers" quite repugnant to me these days...

"I despise them, actually....



Synonyms for repugnant:abhorrent (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abhorrent), abominable (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abominable), appalling (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/appalling), awful (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/awful), disgusting (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disgusting), distasteful (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distasteful), dreadful (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dreadful), evil (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evil), foul (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/foul), fulsome (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fulsome), gross (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gross), hideous (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hideous), horrendous (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/horrendous), horrible (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/horrible), horrid (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/horrid), loathsome (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loathsome), nasty (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nasty), nauseating (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nauseating), nauseous (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nauseous), noisome (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/noisome), noxious (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/noxious), obnoxious (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obnoxious), obscene (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obscene), odious (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/odious), rancid (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rancid), repellent (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/repellent) (also repellant (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/repellant)), offensive (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/offensive), repulsive (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/repulsive), revolting (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/revolting), scandalous (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scandalous), shocking (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shocking), sickening (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sickening), ugly (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ugly) -

Synonyms for despise:abhor (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abhor), abominate (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abominate), hate (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hate), detest (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/detest), execrate (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/execrate), loathe (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loathe)

[lamboguy]

ralph got this one right. i don't want to kill babies, why should i have to pay for it?

if they want to kill their babies make them pay for it. i can't in good conscience allow my money to go for killing unborn babies.

[classhandicapper]

Unfortunately, and I think you know this, it will never happen. Liberals are not about personal responsibility, they are about big Gov programs and hand outs. The "if it feels good" liberals disdain for any kind of moral code or renaissance is obvious with their assault on anything with a Christian religious connotation. Hence their support of aborts, gay rights, etc.
...
...
Europe is morally decadent; I'm amazed that Liberals tend to define the moral decline of society as "Progressive".

I agree 100%.

If you talk to educated and sensible liberals, many seem to fear religion, religious people, and/or think it's all total nonsense. That's fine. I don't care what they think. But once you consider religion total nonsense or the enemy, it's easy to take the next step into moral relativism where there are no rules. Once you make that leap you eventually wind up practically promoting destructive and immoral behavior instead of just defending the rights of people to live their lives the way they want. What most of these anti religion and atheist leftists fail to understand is that you can measure the results of various life choices statistically. And it just so happens that some values ARE superior to others, not necessarily because some God says so, but because they lead to a healthier, happier, and more productive life and society. You don't need God to get there. You just need intelligence, common sense, observation, and a good set of stats. But they can't seem to get beyond their fear and hate of religion and associating those superior values with Him. I think for many it's because they want to lead decadent lives, and in order to relieve themselves of the guilt, they have to eliminate God. If there's no God, it frees them to do whatever they want.

[RaceBookJoe]

I agree 100%.

If you talk to educated and sensible liberals, many seem to fear religion, religious people, and/or think it's all total nonsense. That's fine. I don't care what they think. But once you consider religion total nonsense or the enemy, it's easy to take the next step into moral relativism where there are no rules. Once you make that leap you eventually wind up practically promoting destructive and immoral behavior instead of just defending the rights of people to live their lives the way they want. What most of these anti religion and atheist leftists fail to understand is that you can measure the results of various life choices statistically. And it just so happens that some values ARE superior to others, not necessarily because some God says so, but because they lead to a healthier, happier, and more productive life and society. You don't need God to get there. You just need intelligence, common sense, observation, and a good set of stats. But they can't seem to get beyond their fear and hate of religion and associating those superior values with Him. I think for many it's because they want to lead decadent lives, and in order to relieve themselves of the guilt, they have to eliminate God. If there's no God, it frees them to do whatever they want.

I read this yesterday, not saying I agree..but thought provoking I guess :

http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/10/29/its-time-to-end-the-stigma-of-infanticide/

[NJ Stinks]

I agree 100%.

If you talk to educated and sensible liberals, many seem to fear religion, religious people, and/or think it's all total nonsense. That's fine. I don't care what they think. But once you consider religion total nonsense or the enemy, it's easy to take the next step into moral relativism where there are no rules. Once you make that leap you eventually wind up practically promoting destructive and immoral behavior instead of just defending the rights of people to live their lives the way they want. What most of these anti religion and atheist leftists fail to understand is that you can measure the results of various life choices statistically. And it just so happens that some values ARE superior to others, not necessarily because some God says so, but because they lead to a healthier, happier, and more productive life and society. You don't need God to get there. You just need intelligence, common sense, observation, and a good set of stats. But they can't seem to get beyond their fear and hate of religion and associating those superior values with Him. I think for many it's because they want to lead decadent lives, and in order to relieve themselves of the guilt, they have to eliminate God. If there's no God, it frees them to do whatever they want.

Man, are you ever gonna post something I can agree with?

I don't fear religion. I fear religious nuts. You know - the ones who claim to know abortions and gay marriage are "feel good" choices. :rolleyes:

[LottaKash]

http://i405.photobucket.com/albums/pp137/lottakash/abortion_pride_zps86e85ac2.jpg (http://s405.photobucket.com/user/lottakash/media/abortion_pride_zps86e85ac2.jpg.html)

Our future ?..........Sad for our children...This Nation has truly lost it's way...

[classhandicapper]

Man, are you ever gonna post something I can agree with?

I don't fear religion. I fear religious nuts. You know - the ones who claim to know abortions and gay marriage are "feel good" choices. :rolleyes:

You missed the point.

If I said I think abortions are intrinsically immoral and there is a difference between heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships the typical liberal would immediately think I was a religious zealot. But I'm agnostic. Even if I was mouth foaming atheist I'd still think that was true. I don't need God to see the obvious.

I don't think most values are subjective.

I think they are OBJECTIVE.

It sometimes take humanity awhile to figure it all out, but on balance we usually get there. However, IMO, overall, we probably did a better job of that a couple of thousand years ago than we do now (with some notable exceptions that have often been discussed in the religion thread).

The way you measure values is by using intelligence, common sense, observation of results, statistics etc....

Now that doesn't mean I think I should have the right to force my values down the throat of someone that doesn't agree or that hasn't figured it out yet. But if the left can't get away from the concept of it all being subjective (moral relativism) we are all freaking doomed. We should be promoting those values we KNOW produce superior results while simultaneously protecting the rights of those that disagree. We should not be worried that there just happens to be a close relationship between those superior values and what the major religions teach.

Some values are 100% obviously better than others whether there is a God or not. It's that simple.

[Tom]

http://i405.photobucket.com/albums/pp137/lottakash/abortion_pride_zps86e85ac2.jpg (http://s405.photobucket.com/user/lottakash/media/abortion_pride_zps86e85ac2.jpg.html)

Our future ?..........Sad for our children...This Nation has truly lost it's way...They should have aborted HER and kept the baby.

[Show Me the Wire]

Man, are you ever gonna post something I can agree with?

I don't fear religion. I fear religious nuts. You know - the ones who claim to know abortions and gay marriage are "feel good" choices. :rolleyes:


How about messing with natural selection. Due to abortion the next Einstein could be eliminated from humanity or even more important a mutation in genetics that would be the key to surviving a changing environment would not enter the gene pool, etc.

Abortion is in direct conflict with natural selection and it is a selfish choice.

Homosexuality may be part of natural selection.