[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
pookie wrote:
The way the article states it, it’s funding for groups who provide abortion among their counseling services; it doesn’t mean that abortion is the only, exclusive service they provide.
So, from my understanding of it, if a family planning clinic abroad offered birth control and also abortion services, it could not get funding from the US govt. Even if it didn’t use the US funds for the abortions, it was not eligible.
Those funds aren’t going to be 100% used for abortions; in fact, with effective birth control, you might reduce the overall abortion rates.
And that makes it better how?
Those funds aren’t going to be 100% used for abortions; in fact, with effective birth control, you might reduce the overall abortion rates.
[/quote]
You can’t reduce abortion rates by supporting abortion funding. I understand this is a small piece of the pie, but it is still a negative…Wait until they resurrect FOCA, it will be a fucking free for all then.
[quote]suruppak wrote:
I agree with very little that my tax money goes towards, this included.
However, the pragmatist in me can’t help but to think, why shouldn’t abortion be completely legal all around?
[/quote]
Because it is murder, that’s why. It takes a human life.
[quote]Deusomega wrote:
orion wrote:
Gentlemen your money is already used to kill people abroad.
Would you feel the same outrage if a hippiecommiepeacenick very much objected to his money going towards wars of aggression?
Last time I checked two wrongs don’t make a right. As in funding wars of aggression is retarded and so is funding foreign birth control. [/quote]
True. But there are orders of magnitude in dollars.
What’s more, the people cheering at wars of aggression are the very same who express most outrage about the abortion issue. See the comment about “innocent babies” when they’re still fetuses inside a woman, and how he justifies murder of babies blown up by American bombs.
That’s the context in which you should interpret Orion’s statement.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Deusomega wrote:
orion wrote:
Gentlemen your money is already used to kill people abroad.
Would you feel the same outrage if a hippiecommiepeacenick very much objected to his money going towards wars of aggression?
Last time I checked two wrongs don’t make a right. As in funding wars of aggression is retarded and so is funding foreign birth control.
True. But there are orders of magnitude in dollars.
What’s more, the people cheering at wars of aggression are the very same who express most outrage about the abortion issue. See the comment about “innocent babies” when they’re still fetuses inside a woman, and how he justifies murder of babies blown up by American bombs.
That’s the context in which you should interpret Orion’s statement.[/quote]
Nobody has cheered on any war. You consistently say stupid shit that for the most part is incorrect if not a flat out lie.
How about we discuss all the babies murdered by Islamic extremists. There is a distinct lack of outrage on your part for that. Nobody here needs moral lessons from a terrorist supporter.
[quote]pookie wrote:
The way the article states it, it’s funding for groups who provide abortion among their counseling services; it doesn’t mean that abortion is the only, exclusive service they provide.
So, from my understanding of it, if a family planning clinic abroad offered birth control and also abortion services, it could not get funding from the US govt. Even if it didn’t use the US funds for the abortions, it was not eligible.
Those funds aren’t going to be 100% used for abortions; in fact, with effective birth control, you might reduce the overall abortion rates.
[/quote]
This post is too much common sense for this thread.
[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
pookie wrote:
The way the article states it, it’s funding for groups who provide abortion among their counseling services; it doesn’t mean that abortion is the only, exclusive service they provide.
So, from my understanding of it, if a family planning clinic abroad offered birth control and also abortion services, it could not get funding from the US govt. Even if it didn’t use the US funds for the abortions, it was not eligible.
Those funds aren’t going to be 100% used for abortions; in fact, with effective birth control, you might reduce the overall abortion rates.
And that makes it better how?
Those funds aren’t going to be 100% used for abortions; in fact, with effective birth control, you might reduce the overall abortion rates.
[/quote]
Two points:
You cannot magically divide the money an organization gets into "abortion " and not “abortion” money. It would funds part of it and they want none of it.
Which brings us to the second point:
You are arguing from a consequential and they are arguing from a deontological perspective, and the twain shall never meet.
You think that the outcome is probably less abortions, therefore let´s do it- They think that abortion is in and of itself an immoral act and want nothing to do with it. In fact, your very style of reasoning could be seen as an insult because it contains a form of moral blackmail, at least if you think in deontological terms.
[quote]lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
Nobody has cheered on any war.
That’s axiomatically wrong.
Many people have cheered on many wars.
You consistently say stupid shit that for the most part is incorrect if not a flat out lie.
The person behind this thread has repeatedly expressed his support for many wars of aggression, and has unambiguously pushed for more.
Let me know if you need quotes dug up.
How about we discuss all the babies murdered by Islamic extremists.
Let’s. You name the place and time.
There is a distinct lack of outrage on your part for that.
Actually, I used to report Islamist attacks in an “Iraq thread” and got heavily criticized for that. It’s still there if you want to look it up.
Besides, not a penny of my money goes to kill anyone. When I bitch about my tax-money being squandered, it’s usually for dull things. [/quote]
The USA has never fought in a ‘war of aggression’. We have done pre-emptive strikes, which is not the same thing. You have us confused with the Ottomans or with Tamerlane or similar.
BTW: I advocate that individuals be able to decide where their tax dollars go. Don’t like the war? Don’t vote to fund it.
Now, can Morocco accept those poor souls from GITMO? They need a home, those poor freedom fighters.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Deusomega wrote:
orion wrote:
Gentlemen your money is already used to kill people abroad.
Would you feel the same outrage if a hippiecommiepeacenick very much objected to his money going towards wars of aggression?
Last time I checked two wrongs don’t make a right. As in funding wars of aggression is retarded and so is funding foreign birth control.
True. But there are orders of magnitude in dollars.
What’s more, the people cheering at wars of aggression are the very same who express most outrage about the abortion issue. See the comment about “innocent babies” when they’re still fetuses inside a woman, and how he justifies murder of babies blown up by American bombs.
That’s the context in which you should interpret Orion’s statement.[/quote]
Well, that is the context, but in this case I was wondering whether they would give a shit if other people felt the same about things they deem necessary, like Gitmo, or the wars?
I mean, no one would be outraged that his money is used to fund immoral acts, but would make fun of other people who felt strongly on other issues.
