A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[koshergrl]

I choose both. Women have been doing both for many years while the rest of us got neither. It's time BOTH were reversed.

So sad you whine about people wanting it both ways when what you support on both issues has been just that in your favor. Typical hypocrite.

So, it isn't about "paying for her choice"; it's about helping the poor period. You just don't want to. So, please piss up a rope with your red herring about "paying for other people's choices". You're not mad because you're having to "pay for other people's choices", your mad because you don't get to dictate how women behave.

I don't want to dictate how she behaves but I expect her when she makes a choice to pay for it.

I don't have a problem helping the poor as I see fit. I have a problem with people like you thinking it's your place to determine how much and in what manner that help should come then taking credit as if was your money.

Yeah...we tried that, ":...as I see fit...", and the problem is that statistically "...as I see fit..." translates to not at all. This was why the welfare system was began in the first place. We used to depend on churches, and private organizations. Unfortunately those churches, and private organizations depended solely on donations, and none of them were able to provide the services necessary, because people just didn't donate. So, you'll forgive me if I don't particularly trust your "...as I see fit..." to prevent people from starving, and dying in the streets.

Another lie/false premise. Churches continue to serve the same population. Most food banks are fun by churches. Most hospitals are run by churches. There are adoption agencies and foster programs run by churches, still. Churches have organizations, programs and homes for women and children.

You aren't aware of them because you're ignorant, because you've never worked in human services, and because you are anti-Christian and so dismiss everything the churches do. St. Vincent de Paul and Salvation Army are both church charities, they serve I don't know how many people a year with housing, treatment, clothing, food, jobs....

And they are just the tip of that particular iceburg. The vast majority of hospitals are charitable hospitals run by churches...and they all have charity programs for people who cannot pay for treatment.

Most DV safe houses are founded and funded by religious organizations.

As I said, these people have no argument when you take away all the false premises they throw up. When you eliminate the false premises, it comes down to one thing...they do not value human life, they view POOR humans as having less value than anybody else, and their children as having no value at all. They think they will starve if they don't kill them, because they know they will provide exactly NOTHING towards their upkeep, willingly. These are the people who get SSI if they can (a retard check for people who are too stupid or lazy to work) and who think that their check will be smaller if Molly Hebrides from upstairs pops out another baby.

What it boils down to with that asshole is if people don't voluntarily do with what it theirs the way he thinks, he supports taking it from them.

Or killing them.

 

[Conservative65]

So, it isn't about "paying for her choice"; it's about helping the poor period. You just don't want to. So, please piss up a rope with your red herring about "paying for other people's choices". You're not mad because you're having to "pay for other people's choices", your mad because you don't get to dictate how women behave.

I don't want to dictate how she behaves but I expect her when she makes a choice to pay for it.

I don't have a problem helping the poor as I see fit. I have a problem with people like you thinking it's your place to determine how much and in what manner that help should come then taking credit as if was your money.

Yeah...we tried that, ":...as I see fit...", and the problem is that statistically "...as I see fit..." translates to not at all. This was why the welfare system was began in the first place. We used to depend on churches, and private organizations. Unfortunately those churches, and private organizations depended solely on donations, and none of them were able to provide the services necessary, because people just didn't donate. So, you'll forgive me if I don't particularly trust your "...as I see fit..." to prevent people from starving, and dying in the streets.

Another lie/false premise. Churches continue to serve the same population. Most food banks are fun by churches. Most hospitals are run by churches. There are adoption agencies and foster programs run by churches, still. Churches have organizations, programs and homes for women and children.

You aren't aware of them because you're ignorant, because you've never worked in human services, and because you are anti-Christian and so dismiss everything the churches do. St. Vincent de Paul and Salvation Army are both church charities, they serve I don't know how many people a year with housing, treatment, clothing, food, jobs....

And they are just the tip of that particular iceburg. The vast majority of hospitals are charitable hospitals run by churches...and they all have charity programs for people who cannot pay for treatment.

Most DV safe houses are founded and funded by religious organizations.

As I said, these people have no argument when you take away all the false premises they throw up. When you eliminate the false premises, it comes down to one thing...they do not value human life, they view POOR humans as having less value than anybody else, and their children as having no value at all. They think they will starve if they don't kill them, because they know they will provide exactly NOTHING towards their upkeep, willingly. These are the people who get SSI if they can (a retard check for people who are too stupid or lazy to work) and who think that their check will be smaller if Molly Hebrides from upstairs pops out another baby.

What it boils down to with that asshole is if people don't voluntarily do with what it theirs the way he thinks, he supports taking it from them.

Or killing them.

I'm all for giving the woman a choice with her body. I don't care how many people she screws but if doing so causes pregnancy, it's no longer about a choice but a responsibility. I don't care how many children she chooses to have but when she does, they're her responsibility.

 

[Czernobog]

So choose. Which agenda would you like me to support? I will either support a ban on abortion, or the cutting of welfare. You can have one, or the other. Which do you choose?

I choose both. Women have been doing both for many years while the rest of us got neither. It's time BOTH were reversed.

So sad you whine about people wanting it both ways when what you support on both issues has been just that in your favor. Typical hypocrite.

So, it isn't about "paying for her choice"; it's about helping the poor period. You just don't want to. So, please piss up a rope with your red herring about "paying for other people's choices". You're not mad because you're having to "pay for other people's choices", your mad because you don't get to dictate how women behave.

I don't want to dictate how she behaves but I expect her when she makes a choice to pay for it.

I don't have a problem helping the poor as I see fit. I have a problem with people like you thinking it's your place to determine how much and in what manner that help should come then taking credit as if was your money.

Yeah...we tried that, ":...as I see fit...", and the problem is that statistically "...as I see fit..." translates to not at all. This was why the welfare system was began in the first place. We used to depend on churches, and private organizations. Unfortunately those churches, and private organizations depended solely on donations, and none of them were able to provide the services necessary, because people just didn't donate. So, you'll forgive me if I don't particularly trust your "...as I see fit..." to prevent people from starving, and dying in the streets.

Another lie/false premise. Churches continue to serve the same population. Most food banks are fun by churches. Most hospitals are run by churches. There are adoption agencies and foster programs run by churches, still. Churches have organizations, programs and homes for women and children.

You aren't aware of them because you're ignorant, because you've never worked in human services, and because you are anti-Christian and so dismiss everything the churches do. St. Vincent de Paul and Salvation Army are both church charities, they serve I don't know how many people a year with housing, treatment, clothing, food, jobs....

And they are just the tip of that particular iceburg. The vast majority of hospitals are charitable hospitals run by churches...and they all have charity programs for people who cannot pay for treatment.

Most DV safe houses are founded and funded by religious organizations.

As I said, these people have no argument when you take away all the false premises they throw up. When you eliminate the false premises, it comes down to one thing...they do not value human life, they view POOR humans as having less value than anybody else, and their children as having no value at all. They think they will starve if they don't kill them, because they know they will provide exactly NOTHING towards their upkeep, willingly. These are the people who get SSI if they can (a retard check for people who are too stupid or lazy to work) and who think that their check will be smaller if Molly Hebrides from upstairs pops out another baby.

The false premise is yours. "Are thee no prisons? Have the work houses shut down?" You presume that because these organisations operate, that they do, and would provide the same level of assistance that government programs do, I'd there we're no government programs. History, and statistics demonstrate that is simply not the case, which was why the federal welfare system was needed in the first place.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[koshergrl]

I don't want to dictate how she behaves but I expect her when she makes a choice to pay for it.

I don't have a problem helping the poor as I see fit. I have a problem with people like you thinking it's your place to determine how much and in what manner that help should come then taking credit as if was your money.

Yeah...we tried that, ":...as I see fit...", and the problem is that statistically "...as I see fit..." translates to not at all. This was why the welfare system was began in the first place. We used to depend on churches, and private organizations. Unfortunately those churches, and private organizations depended solely on donations, and none of them were able to provide the services necessary, because people just didn't donate. So, you'll forgive me if I don't particularly trust your "...as I see fit..." to prevent people from starving, and dying in the streets.

Another lie/false premise. Churches continue to serve the same population. Most food banks are fun by churches. Most hospitals are run by churches. There are adoption agencies and foster programs run by churches, still. Churches have organizations, programs and homes for women and children.

You aren't aware of them because you're ignorant, because you've never worked in human services, and because you are anti-Christian and so dismiss everything the churches do. St. Vincent de Paul and Salvation Army are both church charities, they serve I don't know how many people a year with housing, treatment, clothing, food, jobs....

And they are just the tip of that particular iceburg. The vast majority of hospitals are charitable hospitals run by churches...and they all have charity programs for people who cannot pay for treatment.

Most DV safe houses are founded and funded by religious organizations.

As I said, these people have no argument when you take away all the false premises they throw up. When you eliminate the false premises, it comes down to one thing...they do not value human life, they view POOR humans as having less value than anybody else, and their children as having no value at all. They think they will starve if they don't kill them, because they know they will provide exactly NOTHING towards their upkeep, willingly. These are the people who get SSI if they can (a retard check for people who are too stupid or lazy to work) and who think that their check will be smaller if Molly Hebrides from upstairs pops out another baby.

What it boils down to with that asshole is if people don't voluntarily do with what it theirs the way he thinks, he supports taking it from them.

Or killing them.

I'm all for giving the woman a choice with her body. I don't care how many people she screws but if doing so causes pregnancy, it's no longer about a choice but a responsibility. I don't care how many children she chooses to have but when she does, they're her responsibility.

And her family's!!!
This is why we protect the sanctity of MARRIAGE. The progressives replaced marriage with welfare and abortions..and the result is a huge population of stupid, addicted, dependent ass clowns like Coyote, who think the world will end if they don't get that $673 a month in SSI and that $357 per month in foodstamps.

 

[Czernobog]

I choose both. Women have been doing both for many years while the rest of us got neither. It's time BOTH were reversed.

So sad you whine about people wanting it both ways when what you support on both issues has been just that in your favor. Typical hypocrite.

So, it isn't about "paying for her choice"; it's about helping the poor period. You just don't want to. So, please piss up a rope with your red herring about "paying for other people's choices". You're not mad because you're having to "pay for other people's choices", your mad because you don't get to dictate how women behave.

I don't want to dictate how she behaves but I expect her when she makes a choice to pay for it.

I don't have a problem helping the poor as I see fit. I have a problem with people like you thinking it's your place to determine how much and in what manner that help should come then taking credit as if was your money.

Yeah...we tried that, ":...as I see fit...", and the problem is that statistically "...as I see fit..." translates to not at all. This was why the welfare system was began in the first place. We used to depend on churches, and private organizations. Unfortunately those churches, and private organizations depended solely on donations, and none of them were able to provide the services necessary, because people just didn't donate. So, you'll forgive me if I don't particularly trust your "...as I see fit..." to prevent people from starving, and dying in the streets.

Another lie/false premise. Churches continue to serve the same population. Most food banks are fun by churches. Most hospitals are run by churches. There are adoption agencies and foster programs run by churches, still. Churches have organizations, programs and homes for women and children.

You aren't aware of them because you're ignorant, because you've never worked in human services, and because you are anti-Christian and so dismiss everything the churches do. St. Vincent de Paul and Salvation Army are both church charities, they serve I don't know how many people a year with housing, treatment, clothing, food, jobs....

And they are just the tip of that particular iceburg. The vast majority of hospitals are charitable hospitals run by churches...and they all have charity programs for people who cannot pay for treatment.

Most DV safe houses are founded and funded by religious organizations.

As I said, these people have no argument when you take away all the false premises they throw up. When you eliminate the false premises, it comes down to one thing...they do not value human life, they view POOR humans as having less value than anybody else, and their children as having no value at all. They think they will starve if they don't kill them, because they know they will provide exactly NOTHING towards their upkeep, willingly. These are the people who get SSI if they can (a retard check for people who are too stupid or lazy to work) and who think that their check will be smaller if Molly Hebrides from upstairs pops out another baby.

What it boils down to with that asshole is if people don't voluntarily do with what it theirs the way he thinks, he supports taking it from them.

No. What it books down to is people will starve and die. I get that you're a selfish prick, and don't care. But, fortunately the majority of Americans do, so you'll just have to deal with that reality until you can convince us not to.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[koshergrl]

I choose both. Women have been doing both for many years while the rest of us got neither. It's time BOTH were reversed.

So sad you whine about people wanting it both ways when what you support on both issues has been just that in your favor. Typical hypocrite.

So, it isn't about "paying for her choice"; it's about helping the poor period. You just don't want to. So, please piss up a rope with your red herring about "paying for other people's choices". You're not mad because you're having to "pay for other people's choices", your mad because you don't get to dictate how women behave.

I don't want to dictate how she behaves but I expect her when she makes a choice to pay for it.

I don't have a problem helping the poor as I see fit. I have a problem with people like you thinking it's your place to determine how much and in what manner that help should come then taking credit as if was your money.

Yeah...we tried that, ":...as I see fit...", and the problem is that statistically "...as I see fit..." translates to not at all. This was why the welfare system was began in the first place. We used to depend on churches, and private organizations. Unfortunately those churches, and private organizations depended solely on donations, and none of them were able to provide the services necessary, because people just didn't donate. So, you'll forgive me if I don't particularly trust your "...as I see fit..." to prevent people from starving, and dying in the streets.

Another lie/false premise. Churches continue to serve the same population. Most food banks are fun by churches. Most hospitals are run by churches. There are adoption agencies and foster programs run by churches, still. Churches have organizations, programs and homes for women and children.

You aren't aware of them because you're ignorant, because you've never worked in human services, and because you are anti-Christian and so dismiss everything the churches do. St. Vincent de Paul and Salvation Army are both church charities, they serve I don't know how many people a year with housing, treatment, clothing, food, jobs....

And they are just the tip of that particular iceburg. The vast majority of hospitals are charitable hospitals run by churches...and they all have charity programs for people who cannot pay for treatment.

Most DV safe houses are founded and funded by religious organizations.

As I said, these people have no argument when you take away all the false premises they throw up. When you eliminate the false premises, it comes down to one thing...they do not value human life, they view POOR humans as having less value than anybody else, and their children as having no value at all. They think they will starve if they don't kill them, because they know they will provide exactly NOTHING towards their upkeep, willingly. These are the people who get SSI if they can (a retard check for people who are too stupid or lazy to work) and who think that their check will be smaller if Molly Hebrides from upstairs pops out another baby.

The false premise is yours. "Are thee no prisons? Have the work houses shut down?" You presume that because these organisations operate, that they do, and would provide the same level of assistance that government programs do, I'd there we're no government programs. History, and statistics demonstrate that is simply not the case, which was why the federal welfare system was needed in the first place.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

The welfare system was never needed in the first place. We had a rare population of widows with children after WWII who were completely unqualified to get jobs, particularly in light of the sudden slam of available veterans to do menial jobs. THAT was the population welfare was meant to serve, and it was never supposed to grow and continue forever.

Again. False premise. Lies. It's all baby killers have. Because everybody knows, killing babies is just wrong.

 

[koshergrl]

So, it isn't about "paying for her choice"; it's about helping the poor period. You just don't want to. So, please piss up a rope with your red herring about "paying for other people's choices". You're not mad because you're having to "pay for other people's choices", your mad because you don't get to dictate how women behave.

I don't want to dictate how she behaves but I expect her when she makes a choice to pay for it.

I don't have a problem helping the poor as I see fit. I have a problem with people like you thinking it's your place to determine how much and in what manner that help should come then taking credit as if was your money.

Yeah...we tried that, ":...as I see fit...", and the problem is that statistically "...as I see fit..." translates to not at all. This was why the welfare system was began in the first place. We used to depend on churches, and private organizations. Unfortunately those churches, and private organizations depended solely on donations, and none of them were able to provide the services necessary, because people just didn't donate. So, you'll forgive me if I don't particularly trust your "...as I see fit..." to prevent people from starving, and dying in the streets.

Another lie/false premise. Churches continue to serve the same population. Most food banks are fun by churches. Most hospitals are run by churches. There are adoption agencies and foster programs run by churches, still. Churches have organizations, programs and homes for women and children.

You aren't aware of them because you're ignorant, because you've never worked in human services, and because you are anti-Christian and so dismiss everything the churches do. St. Vincent de Paul and Salvation Army are both church charities, they serve I don't know how many people a year with housing, treatment, clothing, food, jobs....

And they are just the tip of that particular iceburg. The vast majority of hospitals are charitable hospitals run by churches...and they all have charity programs for people who cannot pay for treatment.

Most DV safe houses are founded and funded by religious organizations.

As I said, these people have no argument when you take away all the false premises they throw up. When you eliminate the false premises, it comes down to one thing...they do not value human life, they view POOR humans as having less value than anybody else, and their children as having no value at all. They think they will starve if they don't kill them, because they know they will provide exactly NOTHING towards their upkeep, willingly. These are the people who get SSI if they can (a retard check for people who are too stupid or lazy to work) and who think that their check will be smaller if Molly Hebrides from upstairs pops out another baby.

What it boils down to with that asshole is if people don't voluntarily do with what it theirs the way he thinks, he supports taking it from them.

No. What it books down to is people will starve and die. I get that you're a selfish prick, and don't care. But, fortunately the majority of Americans do, so you'll just have to deal with that reality until you can convince us not to.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

When people starve and die is when the feds control the food supply..which is the true intent of snap. To create dependence, and then to control the masses. And it works. Just look at you grovel for largesse from the hands of the state that you could actually obtain on your own, if you'd get off your lazy ass to do it.

 

[Czernobog]

The welfare system was never needed in the first place. We had a rare population of widows with children after WWII who were completely unqualified to get jobs, particularly in light of the sudden slam of available veterans to do menial jobs. THAT was the population welfare was meant to serve, and it was never supposed to grow and continue forever.

Again. False premise. Lies. It's all baby killers have. Because everybody knows, killing babies is just wrong.

Wow. You really don't know your history, do you? WW II had nothing to do with the advent of the public welfare system. that would have been the crash of 1929, marking the beginning of the Great Depression, when many middle and upper-income families first experienced poverty in America. These were hard-working people who fully shared the values and ideals of the American dream, people who had enjoyed the strong economy of the 1920s and had bought the homes, refrigerators, and automobiles. The sudden and severe downturn of the American economy left many of these people in shock and denial. Some became suicidal. Between 1929 and 1933, unemployment in the United States jumped from 3.2 percent to 24.9 percent, almost a quarter of the official labor force. Americans who had grown up promoting the ideology of the “deserving and undeserving poor” and the stigma of poor relief were now standing in line for relief. Private nonprofit organizations such as Community Chests, although valiant in their effort, were overwhelmed with requests, unable to meet the needs of their communities. State and local governments, ultimately responsible for their poor throughout American history, now looked for financial assistance. The charities were simply not enough. The local, and state governments didn't have the budget. Something new was needed. That was when Roosevelt introduced his New Deal, which included the programs that became the backbone of the Welfare system.

You can insist that the Welfare system was never needed all you like. History, and facts do not agree with your opinion.

 

[Zoom-boing]

The welfare system was never needed in the first place. We had a rare population of widows with children after WWII who were completely unqualified to get jobs, particularly in light of the sudden slam of available veterans to do menial jobs. THAT was the population welfare was meant to serve, and it was never supposed to grow and continue forever.

Again. False premise. Lies. It's all baby killers have. Because everybody knows, killing babies is just wrong.

Wow. You really don't know your history, do you? WW II had nothing to do with the advent of the public welfare system. that would have been the crash of 1929, marking the beginning of the Great Depression, when many middle and upper-income families first experienced poverty in America. These were hard-working people who fully shared the values and ideals of the American dream, people who had enjoyed the strong economy of the 1920s and had bought the homes, refrigerators, and automobiles. The sudden and severe downturn of the American economy left many of these people in shock and denial. Some became suicidal. Between 1929 and 1933, unemployment in the United States jumped from 3.2 percent to 24.9 percent, almost a quarter of the official labor force. Americans who had grown up promoting the ideology of the “deserving and undeserving poor” and the stigma of poor relief were now standing in line for relief. Private nonprofit organizations such as Community Chests, although valiant in their effort, were overwhelmed with requests, unable to meet the needs of their communities. State and local governments, ultimately responsible for their poor throughout American history, now looked for financial assistance. The charities were simply not enough. The local, and state governments didn't have the budget. Something new was needed. That was when Roosevelt introduced his New Deal, which included the programs that became the backbone of the Welfare system.

You can insist that the Welfare system was never needed all you like. History, and facts do not agree with your opinion.

And when the crisis was over, and things swung around and the welfare system was no longer needed, it was disbanded and the local charitable organizations provided for their own once again.

Oh wait . . .

If government provides the necessities for those who are able to fend for themselves, they will become dependent and never fend for themselves.

How many on food stamps, welfare, and gov't dependent now?

 

[Czernobog]

The welfare system was never needed in the first place. We had a rare population of widows with children after WWII who were completely unqualified to get jobs, particularly in light of the sudden slam of available veterans to do menial jobs. THAT was the population welfare was meant to serve, and it was never supposed to grow and continue forever.

Again. False premise. Lies. It's all baby killers have. Because everybody knows, killing babies is just wrong.

Wow. You really don't know your history, do you? WW II had nothing to do with the advent of the public welfare system. that would have been the crash of 1929, marking the beginning of the Great Depression, when many middle and upper-income families first experienced poverty in America. These were hard-working people who fully shared the values and ideals of the American dream, people who had enjoyed the strong economy of the 1920s and had bought the homes, refrigerators, and automobiles. The sudden and severe downturn of the American economy left many of these people in shock and denial. Some became suicidal. Between 1929 and 1933, unemployment in the United States jumped from 3.2 percent to 24.9 percent, almost a quarter of the official labor force. Americans who had grown up promoting the ideology of the “deserving and undeserving poor” and the stigma of poor relief were now standing in line for relief. Private nonprofit organizations such as Community Chests, although valiant in their effort, were overwhelmed with requests, unable to meet the needs of their communities. State and local governments, ultimately responsible for their poor throughout American history, now looked for financial assistance. The charities were simply not enough. The local, and state governments didn't have the budget. Something new was needed. That was when Roosevelt introduced his New Deal, which included the programs that became the backbone of the Welfare system.

You can insist that the Welfare system was never needed all you like. History, and facts do not agree with your opinion.

And when the crisis was over, and things swung around and the welfare system was no longer needed, it was disbanded and the local charitable organizations provided for their own once again.

Oh wait . . .

If government provides the necessities for those who are able to fend for themselves, they will become dependent and never fend for themselves.

How many on food stamps, welfare, and gov't dependent now?

When did it ever "swing around", so that private charities were funded well enough, or local and state governments ever had the budget to pick up for the federal government? They didn't. The myth that private charities could "do the job" just as well as the government welfare system is just that - a myth.

 

[Boss]

I'm sorry but I would love to know where in the constitution it says that a fetus has rights?

That's the thing. If the anti choice people are going to take it to the supreme court they have to have a constitutional leg to stand on.

They don't.

So their problem is that even though they don't know the meaning of words in the English language, judges do.

No judge who is honest and knows our constitution would ever rule that something that's not alive has any rights. Much less more rights than a woman who is alive.

Show me where the constitution says people named Dana7360 have rights? In several landmark rulings, the court has found that the constitution does not have to specifically name who is entitled to inalienable and endowed human civil rights. It is generally accepted this applies to all humans who reside inside the jurisdiction of America.

Now... you make an erroneous statement at the end about the fetus not being alive. It's amazing that something "not living" somehow grew from a zygote into a fetus and will eventually grow into a newborn infant if not aborted. In fact.... this downright contradicts biology.

From the instant the fused egg and sperm cell reproduce another cell, it becomes a living organism. It will grow and develop as anything living does, over the course of the coming weeks. But this illustrates precisely what the problem is in this debate... the unwillingness of pro-abortionists to admit that we are talking about terminating human life.

For the record, I am perfectly fine with us collectively, as a society, deciding when it is appropriate to terminate human life. We cannot have that conversation as long as some knuckle-draggers refuse to acknowledge basic biological facts.

 

[Conservative65]

So, it isn't about "paying for her choice"; it's about helping the poor period. You just don't want to. So, please piss up a rope with your red herring about "paying for other people's choices". You're not mad because you're having to "pay for other people's choices", your mad because you don't get to dictate how women behave.

I don't want to dictate how she behaves but I expect her when she makes a choice to pay for it.

I don't have a problem helping the poor as I see fit. I have a problem with people like you thinking it's your place to determine how much and in what manner that help should come then taking credit as if was your money.

Yeah...we tried that, ":...as I see fit...", and the problem is that statistically "...as I see fit..." translates to not at all. This was why the welfare system was began in the first place. We used to depend on churches, and private organizations. Unfortunately those churches, and private organizations depended solely on donations, and none of them were able to provide the services necessary, because people just didn't donate. So, you'll forgive me if I don't particularly trust your "...as I see fit..." to prevent people from starving, and dying in the streets.

Another lie/false premise. Churches continue to serve the same population. Most food banks are fun by churches. Most hospitals are run by churches. There are adoption agencies and foster programs run by churches, still. Churches have organizations, programs and homes for women and children.

You aren't aware of them because you're ignorant, because you've never worked in human services, and because you are anti-Christian and so dismiss everything the churches do. St. Vincent de Paul and Salvation Army are both church charities, they serve I don't know how many people a year with housing, treatment, clothing, food, jobs....

And they are just the tip of that particular iceburg. The vast majority of hospitals are charitable hospitals run by churches...and they all have charity programs for people who cannot pay for treatment.

Most DV safe houses are founded and funded by religious organizations.

As I said, these people have no argument when you take away all the false premises they throw up. When you eliminate the false premises, it comes down to one thing...they do not value human life, they view POOR humans as having less value than anybody else, and their children as having no value at all. They think they will starve if they don't kill them, because they know they will provide exactly NOTHING towards their upkeep, willingly. These are the people who get SSI if they can (a retard check for people who are too stupid or lazy to work) and who think that their check will be smaller if Molly Hebrides from upstairs pops out another baby.

What it boils down to with that asshole is if people don't voluntarily do with what it theirs the way he thinks, he supports taking it from them.

No. What it books down to is people will starve and die. I get that you're a selfish prick, and don't care. But, fortunately the majority of Americans do, so you'll just have to deal with that reality until you can convince us not to.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Not if those of you who think someone else deserves another person's money do with your own what you think the rest of us should be forced to do.

I can't be selfish since what I want to keep is what I actually earned. The selfish ones are those that demand the money someone else earned.

If you want to continue to be an idiot and believe someone making choices they tell you to butt out of then can't afford deserves help, go ahead. Do it with YOUR money. Typical retarded motherfucker. I guess when you're not one of those doing the forced paying, it doesn't matter what the rest of us pay. It doesn't cost a freeloader like you a dime to claim what you claim.

 

[Conservative65]

I choose both. Women have been doing both for many years while the rest of us got neither. It's time BOTH were reversed.

So sad you whine about people wanting it both ways when what you support on both issues has been just that in your favor. Typical hypocrite.

So, it isn't about "paying for her choice"; it's about helping the poor period. You just don't want to. So, please piss up a rope with your red herring about "paying for other people's choices". You're not mad because you're having to "pay for other people's choices", your mad because you don't get to dictate how women behave.

I don't want to dictate how she behaves but I expect her when she makes a choice to pay for it.

I don't have a problem helping the poor as I see fit. I have a problem with people like you thinking it's your place to determine how much and in what manner that help should come then taking credit as if was your money.

Yeah...we tried that, ":...as I see fit...", and the problem is that statistically "...as I see fit..." translates to not at all. This was why the welfare system was began in the first place. We used to depend on churches, and private organizations. Unfortunately those churches, and private organizations depended solely on donations, and none of them were able to provide the services necessary, because people just didn't donate. So, you'll forgive me if I don't particularly trust your "...as I see fit..." to prevent people from starving, and dying in the streets.

Another lie/false premise. Churches continue to serve the same population. Most food banks are fun by churches. Most hospitals are run by churches. There are adoption agencies and foster programs run by churches, still. Churches have organizations, programs and homes for women and children.

You aren't aware of them because you're ignorant, because you've never worked in human services, and because you are anti-Christian and so dismiss everything the churches do. St. Vincent de Paul and Salvation Army are both church charities, they serve I don't know how many people a year with housing, treatment, clothing, food, jobs....

And they are just the tip of that particular iceburg. The vast majority of hospitals are charitable hospitals run by churches...and they all have charity programs for people who cannot pay for treatment.

Most DV safe houses are founded and funded by religious organizations.

As I said, these people have no argument when you take away all the false premises they throw up. When you eliminate the false premises, it comes down to one thing...they do not value human life, they view POOR humans as having less value than anybody else, and their children as having no value at all. They think they will starve if they don't kill them, because they know they will provide exactly NOTHING towards their upkeep, willingly. These are the people who get SSI if they can (a retard check for people who are too stupid or lazy to work) and who think that their check will be smaller if Molly Hebrides from upstairs pops out another baby.

The false premise is yours. "Are thee no prisons? Have the work houses shut down?" You presume that because these organisations operate, that they do, and would provide the same level of assistance that government programs do, I'd there we're no government programs. History, and statistics demonstrate that is simply not the case, which was why the federal welfare system was needed in the first place.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

It doesn't matter whether or not private and voluntary donations did enough. That doesn't, by default, mean the government has any place in the process. In fact, if you bleeding hearts truly cared, you wouldn't involve the government at all. When there wasn't enough, in your opinion, from what others gave voluntarily, the likes of you would get together and make up the difference with your own money. If there isn't enough, people like me aren't to blame. I'm not the one that says someone else deserves to be taken care of. You do. That means if there is a shortage it's because people like you, not me, aren't doing enough. Dig deeper in your own pockets. You think someone else should have what they didn't earn.

 

[Czernobog]

I'm not the one that says someone else deserves to be taken care of.

The implication of that statement, whether you meant it to be, or not, is that some people, in your opinion, simply deserve to starve to death. So how do you make that determination, in light of our nation's founding principle that every person has an inalienable right to life, and by what authority do you make that proclamation?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[koshergrl]

I'm not the one that says someone else deserves to be taken care of.

The implication of that statement, whether you meant it to be, or not, is that some people, in your opinion, simply deserve to starve to death. So how do you make that determination, in light of our nation's founding principle that every person has an inalienable right to life, and by what authority do you make that proclamation?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Again. Abortion doesn't prevent starvation. Removing abortion won't result in starvation. That is a FALSE premise.

And we do not need any authority other than the authority of GOD to determine that people have a right to life. It doesn't come from man, it doesn't come from law. It comes from God, and there is no man or law or government on earth that has the authority to GRANT that which we have from the moment of our conception.

 

[Czernobog]

I don't want to dictate how she behaves but I expect her when she makes a choice to pay for it.

I don't have a problem helping the poor as I see fit. I have a problem with people like you thinking it's your place to determine how much and in what manner that help should come then taking credit as if was your money.

Yeah...we tried that, ":...as I see fit...", and the problem is that statistically "...as I see fit..." translates to not at all. This was why the welfare system was began in the first place. We used to depend on churches, and private organizations. Unfortunately those churches, and private organizations depended solely on donations, and none of them were able to provide the services necessary, because people just didn't donate. So, you'll forgive me if I don't particularly trust your "...as I see fit..." to prevent people from starving, and dying in the streets.

Another lie/false premise. Churches continue to serve the same population. Most food banks are fun by churches. Most hospitals are run by churches. There are adoption agencies and foster programs run by churches, still. Churches have organizations, programs and homes for women and children.

You aren't aware of them because you're ignorant, because you've never worked in human services, and because you are anti-Christian and so dismiss everything the churches do. St. Vincent de Paul and Salvation Army are both church charities, they serve I don't know how many people a year with housing, treatment, clothing, food, jobs....

And they are just the tip of that particular iceburg. The vast majority of hospitals are charitable hospitals run by churches...and they all have charity programs for people who cannot pay for treatment.

Most DV safe houses are founded and funded by religious organizations.

As I said, these people have no argument when you take away all the false premises they throw up. When you eliminate the false premises, it comes down to one thing...they do not value human life, they view POOR humans as having less value than anybody else, and their children as having no value at all. They think they will starve if they don't kill them, because they know they will provide exactly NOTHING towards their upkeep, willingly. These are the people who get SSI if they can (a retard check for people who are too stupid or lazy to work) and who think that their check will be smaller if Molly Hebrides from upstairs pops out another baby.

The false premise is yours. "Are thee no prisons? Have the work houses shut down?" You presume that because these organisations operate, that they do, and would provide the same level of assistance that government programs do, I'd there we're no government programs. History, and statistics demonstrate that is simply not the case, which was why the federal welfare system was needed in the first place.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

It doesn't matter whether or not private and voluntary donations did enough. That doesn't, by default, mean the government has any place in the process. In fact, if you bleeding hearts truly cared, you wouldn't involve the government at all. When there wasn't enough, in your opinion, from what others gave voluntarily, the likes of you would get together and make up the difference with your own money. If there isn't enough, people like me aren't to blame. I'm not the one that says someone else deserves to be taken care of. You do. That means if there is a shortage it's because people like you, not me, aren't doing enough. Dig deeper in your own pockets. You think someone else should have what they didn't earn.

It's generally more personal than that.

They think WE should fund THEM to do nothing.

I'm not the one that says someone else deserves to be taken care of.

The implication of that statement, whether you meant it to be, or not, is that some people, in your opinion, simply deserve to starve to death. So how do you make that determination, in light of our nation's founding principle that every person has an inalienable right to life, and by what authority do you make that proclamation?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Again. Abortion doesn't prevent starvation. Removing abortion won't result in starvation. That is a FALSE premise.

And we do not need any authority other than the authority of GOD to determine that people have a right to life. It doesn't come from man, it doesn't come from law. It comes from God, and there is no man or law or government on earth that has the authority to GRANT that which we have from the moment of our conception.

The data demonstrates otherwise. Continuing to make an unsupportable claim does not make it more credible.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Boss]

I'm not the one that says someone else deserves to be taken care of.

The implication of that statement, whether you meant it to be, or not, is that some people, in your opinion, simply deserve to starve to death. So how do you make that determination, in light of our nation's founding principle that every person has an inalienable right to life, and by what authority do you make that proclamation?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Can you please give me the name of the last person who involuntarily starved to death in the United States and the date which it happened?

And yes, we ARE talking about the inalienable right to life. The fetus is alive and is human. If it's rights are inalienable, why do you continue to insist we alienate them from their rights?

 

[koshergrl]

Yeah...we tried that, ":...as I see fit...", and the problem is that statistically "...as I see fit..." translates to not at all. This was why the welfare system was began in the first place. We used to depend on churches, and private organizations. Unfortunately those churches, and private organizations depended solely on donations, and none of them were able to provide the services necessary, because people just didn't donate. So, you'll forgive me if I don't particularly trust your "...as I see fit..." to prevent people from starving, and dying in the streets.

Another lie/false premise. Churches continue to serve the same population. Most food banks are fun by churches. Most hospitals are run by churches. There are adoption agencies and foster programs run by churches, still. Churches have organizations, programs and homes for women and children.

You aren't aware of them because you're ignorant, because you've never worked in human services, and because you are anti-Christian and so dismiss everything the churches do. St. Vincent de Paul and Salvation Army are both church charities, they serve I don't know how many people a year with housing, treatment, clothing, food, jobs....

And they are just the tip of that particular iceburg. The vast majority of hospitals are charitable hospitals run by churches...and they all have charity programs for people who cannot pay for treatment.

Most DV safe houses are founded and funded by religious organizations.

As I said, these people have no argument when you take away all the false premises they throw up. When you eliminate the false premises, it comes down to one thing...they do not value human life, they view POOR humans as having less value than anybody else, and their children as having no value at all. They think they will starve if they don't kill them, because they know they will provide exactly NOTHING towards their upkeep, willingly. These are the people who get SSI if they can (a retard check for people who are too stupid or lazy to work) and who think that their check will be smaller if Molly Hebrides from upstairs pops out another baby.

The false premise is yours. "Are thee no prisons? Have the work houses shut down?" You presume that because these organisations operate, that they do, and would provide the same level of assistance that government programs do, I'd there we're no government programs. History, and statistics demonstrate that is simply not the case, which was why the federal welfare system was needed in the first place.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

It doesn't matter whether or not private and voluntary donations did enough. That doesn't, by default, mean the government has any place in the process. In fact, if you bleeding hearts truly cared, you wouldn't involve the government at all. When there wasn't enough, in your opinion, from what others gave voluntarily, the likes of you would get together and make up the difference with your own money. If there isn't enough, people like me aren't to blame. I'm not the one that says someone else deserves to be taken care of. You do. That means if there is a shortage it's because people like you, not me, aren't doing enough. Dig deeper in your own pockets. You think someone else should have what they didn't earn.

It's generally more personal than that.

They think WE should fund THEM to do nothing.

I'm not the one that says someone else deserves to be taken care of.

The implication of that statement, whether you meant it to be, or not, is that some people, in your opinion, simply deserve to starve to death. So how do you make that determination, in light of our nation's founding principle that every person has an inalienable right to life, and by what authority do you make that proclamation?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Again. Abortion doesn't prevent starvation. Removing abortion won't result in starvation. That is a FALSE premise.

And we do not need any authority other than the authority of GOD to determine that people have a right to life. It doesn't come from man, it doesn't come from law. It comes from God, and there is no man or law or government on earth that has the authority to GRANT that which we have from the moment of our conception.

The data demonstrates otherwise. Continuing to make an unsupportable claim does not make it more credible.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You're a liar. The data does NOT demonstrate otherwise.

 

[Czernobog]

I'm not the one that says someone else deserves to be taken care of.

The implication of that statement, whether you meant it to be, or not, is that some people, in your opinion, simply deserve to starve to death. So how do you make that determination, in light of our nation's founding principle that every person has an inalienable right to life, and by what authority do you make that proclamation?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Can you please give me the name of the last person who involuntarily starved to death in the United States and the date which it happened?

And yes, we ARE talking about the inalienable right to life. The fetus is alive and is human. If it's rights are inalienable, why do you continue to insist we alienate them from their rights?

See? Even you call it an "it". When I talk about a person, I talk about "his, or her". When I talk about a thing, I talk about "its". Your own recognition of a fetus as a thing, not a person, betrays your position.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[koshergrl]

"If the goal is to reduce hunger, why are we singling out the preborn as the fall victims?

"Why not kill adults, since they consume more food than children?

"After all, how is it fair to kill a preborn child who might lead an impoverished life, but allow those who already live an impoverished life to stay alive? If murder of the preborn is justified, in the name of reducing hunger, then what’s to stop murder of the already-born?

"We would have to introduce a threshold at which the elderly, disabled, or retarded would need to be euthanized. After all, if they are not producing for society, then they are leeching the system. Should the rule be an age limit? Say, after 60 years, you must die? Or maybe if you stop being paid for work, then you must “be put down?”

"This all gets into eugenics and deciding whose lives are worth living and whose are expendable. Morally corrupt realms."

On Calling for Abortion to Reduce Poverty -ProLife365.com

I just like what they said there. I know you will guffaw because it isn't being spewed by baby killers.