First Republican Debate Set

I guess it doesn't, if we're equating it to appendectomies. I just don't hear that many people framing it that way, even from the pro side.

 

Interesting idea.

 

Sure, I understand that. But everything he bolded was conditional on NOT believing that. Not buying the antecedent condition doesn't make a conditional argument horseshit. If you find abortion morally horrifying, the 3% argument should do absolutely jack to convince you that Planned Parenthood is worth keeping around. If you don't find abortion morally problematic, you don't need to appeal to the 3% argument. So the 3% argument is basically useless.

 

I can understand the complaint with using public monies. It seems using public monies would be just as bad at at 3% as it would at 100%. i was just curious why the percentages matter to some.

 

it seems to me the 3% number always comes from the pro-choice side

 

All the bolded was opinion. That was the point.

 

No. Much like in another thread, there exists more than two extremes. You said no one in their right minds would by an argument that is actually the truth. Now you want to flip it around and pretend like I'm the one who made the "no one in their right minds" remark? Okay.

No, the "in their right minds" part is definitely part of my complaint. You're saying anyone who doesn't agree with you is out of their minds. And simultaneously you are trying to use the very same statement that YOU made, not ME, against me. It's just wonderful.

The "children" part is also part of the complaint. When one has to misuse words and terms to strengthen their argument, it actually weakens the argument. It's a fetus. We're talking about a fetus. Something with no independence, no conscious thought, that doesn't eat, breath, or drink. It isn't a child. It could become a child.

 

It's human tissue. You think I'm dehumanizing something for accurately describing it's current state? I don't walk around calling pine cones trees. I don't call eggs chickens. I don't call a fetus a person.

 

I can hear the other side saying that if there is no public assistance you are making a legal medical procedure unavailable for the poor.

 

None of the facts matter. The video not being real doesn't matter. That this is actually an uncommon procedure doesn't matter. This is a witch hunt.

 

..and the higher percentages from those opposing choice.

 

Federal money can't fund abortion. Congratulations, the interesting idea has been in effect for decades. So there is no problem, right?

 

They have significant private funding

 

It's a stage of development for what becomes.......................a human. That it is a very developmental stage of humanness doesn't make it any less human than you or I.

 

That's a silly argument. Money is fungible. It's ridiculous to imply that if they get federal funding for their other operations that it doesn't make funding abortions much easier.

 

you stated it like you were talking about gravity, or something. that's the impression people get when you use statements like "horseshit" and why people get frustrated with you, but carry on

 

of course but a lot of people from the prolife side don't care if it's .3, 3, 30, or 300%, i guess is the point

 

I've NEVER seen a group shift money allocations around to get to a total overall budger. Especally a non-profit. Never, ever, ever. Must be some California thing.

 

Sarcasm, correct?

 

Much like with Hobby Lobby, it puts the government in the position of picking and choosing which legal procedures are "okay" or not. I imagine Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses don't want public money going towards anything. Scientologists would have a long list of objectionable things as well. When we start picking and choosing which services can be paid for by the public based on personal belief systems rather than the law, we're trampling on other people's rights. People don't like abortions? Try to change the law. Don't try to circumvent that legal process.