Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
When did you flip flop on this. Your argument was that you didn't want to pay. Now all of a sudden you are a saint? Give me a break, liar. You are literally accusing others of what you do. You intentionally misstate the Republican position on helping the poor. I think we care considerably more than your white trash ass does. Or did you already forget your racist rant? Black People Don't Know How To ActI would like to approach this from a different perspective.To be murdered under the US Constitution requires one be a "person." But that is not a scientific concept. Being a homo sapiens sapiens is a scientific concept. But personhood is a vague popular term that is often used in reference to the essence of being human, rather than the facticity of being of our species. It is often admitted as a quality androids might have in the future. And it is something people who are brain dead are often said to be lacking.
The Supreme Court ruled it is indeed such a term. And then defined it as not including the early stages of human development that precede viability. There is no room for scientific rebuttal (except fine tuning the date of viability).
Killing members of our species has never been defined as murder for all purposes. There is war, self defense, and criminal punishment. And historically there was dishonoring ones parents, family, or tribe, believing in the wrong god, being allegedly in league with the devil (virtually never a true allegation). Indeed in Europe, death was reigned down on Jews and Muslim for centuries for worshipping the right god (they all worship the same god of Abraham) the wrong way.
Even if murder was plainly applicable, there is the question of when a pregnant woman becomes two individuals? Essentially, this is the question SCOTUS reflections on personhood involved.
And speaking from a theological perspective, there is the question why a woman should not stand in the stead of a demigod concerning any being living inside her body? It has never been clear to me why god alleges jurisdiction over me just because he played a causal role in my existence. My parents had a causal role in my existence, and a less speculative one, but do not have anything like the authority over me that god allegedly does. Nor does a farmer have such authority over his own livestock, which he likewise intervened in the conception of (artificial insemination is the norm concerning some modern livestock).
On top of this we have the fact that serious minded theologians, clerics, and worshipful people freely admit nothing like proof of god exists. This is the scientific problem of the greatest relevance to the abortion question.
So the question re abortion is actually purely legal and linguistic. There is no debate as to what species the tissue of a pre-personhood fetus or zygote is. There is no question as to whether the cells forming the pre-personhood fetus or zygote are alive.
There is debate as to whether it is ensouled, but that is not a scientific question. Rather it is a religious question and therefore legally irrelevant as religious propositions are forbidden from being enshrined in laws owing to the First Amenment. So this has no place in the legislature or in public policy either.
I am curious what you think pro-choice people believe and/or how you think the law works, such that you advocate their is something science can clarify in this debate?
In the end, your question makes no more sense than my query, "What is the mathematical evidence that the OP does not understand the abortion question or American law?"
Finally, the question I have never seen addressed is why, if abortion was murder based primarily on religious grounds, did it not come to be criminalized in toto until less than two hundred years ago in a religious traditions that are thousands of years old? Note to mention, the Bible enumerates countless reasons for legitimate murder that are far more spacious than abortion.
Government has a vested interest in abortion. It can encourage poorer populations to have abortions so that these populations do not become burdensome. It can encourage only the birth of healthy babies in other populations.
Medical insurance has a vested interest in abortions because there is less cost for abortions than full-term pregnancy care and delivery.
Clearly it is wrong for any agency who may have a vested interest in abortion to push their agenda when the bottom line is money.
Abortion, since it involves killing/ending life, is wrong. However, since no citizen is involved, the government cannot prosecute—nor in any way encourage—abortion. Medical insurance coverage cannot include abortion. If a woman (for any reason) decides to abort, then payment for the procedure is up to her. She has no government backing her that what she does is “legal”. It is a limbo-type situation of it is neither “legal” nor prosecutable. It is totally her responsibility to decide the morality and to pay for the procedure. No help from either government or insurance.
Is this overturning Roe vs Wade? Or, is it totally removing the topic from the political realm? I am very much in favor of the latter because as we see, if you truly want to make a mess of something, turn it over to the politicians.
Unfortunately the reason we pay for abortions is so we don't have to pay for a poor person's baby for 18 years. I don't mind paying welfare and foodstamps but you guys do. If you are willing to pay for the kid for 18 years feel free to ban abortion.
You mean getting rid of programs that don't work? Show me? I don't think you can.Republicans are slashing programs that help the poor. Maybe you aren't a Republican?Unfortunately the reason we pay for abortions is so we don't have to pay for a poor person's baby for 18 years. I don't mind paying welfare and foodstamps but you guys do. If you are willing to pay for the kid for 18 years feel free to ban abortion.
That's rather a broad statement, and in fact you don't know what I mind--or don't mind. Most people thrive on being self-sufficient and gladly embrace opportunities to be so. Others (such as those in special ed classes I teach) will need a helping hand their entire lives. Not only do I happily provide that--I joyfully do it. These are great human beings.
I'm starting to become a Republican. Give the tax breaks to the job creators and the poor can go work for them. Government welfare seems designed to keep people on it. For that I say go Republicans!
I actually think Republican policies will be good for the poor. Tough love.You mean getting rid of programs that don't work? Show me? I don't think you can.Republicans are slashing programs that help the poor. Maybe you aren't a Republican?Unfortunately the reason we pay for abortions is so we don't have to pay for a poor person's baby for 18 years. I don't mind paying welfare and foodstamps but you guys do. If you are willing to pay for the kid for 18 years feel free to ban abortion.
That's rather a broad statement, and in fact you don't know what I mind--or don't mind. Most people thrive on being self-sufficient and gladly embrace opportunities to be so. Others (such as those in special ed classes I teach) will need a helping hand their entire lives. Not only do I happily provide that--I joyfully do it. These are great human beings.
I'm starting to become a Republican. Give the tax breaks to the job creators and the poor can go work for them. Government welfare seems designed to keep people on it. For that I say go Republicans!
I've been pretending to be a Republican asshole lately. Or, there are some things I agree with Republicans on. Half of me says we should cut welfare. Poor women have kids because they know they can afford it because government pays for it. The part of me that says we are overpopulated wants to discourage poor people from having kids, especially accidents who's fathers won't be involved emotionally or financially..When did you flip flop on this. Your argument was that you didn't want to pay. Now all of a sudden you are a saint? Give me a break, liar. You are literally accusing others of what you do. You intentionally misstate the Republican position on helping the poor. I think we care considerably more than your white trash ass does. Or did you already forget your racist rant? Black People Don't Know How To ActI would like to approach this from a different perspective.To be murdered under the US Constitution requires one be a "person." But that is not a scientific concept. Being a homo sapiens sapiens is a scientific concept. But personhood is a vague popular term that is often used in reference to the essence of being human, rather than the facticity of being of our species. It is often admitted as a quality androids might have in the future. And it is something people who are brain dead are often said to be lacking.
The Supreme Court ruled it is indeed such a term. And then defined it as not including the early stages of human development that precede viability. There is no room for scientific rebuttal (except fine tuning the date of viability).
Killing members of our species has never been defined as murder for all purposes. There is war, self defense, and criminal punishment. And historically there was dishonoring ones parents, family, or tribe, believing in the wrong god, being allegedly in league with the devil (virtually never a true allegation). Indeed in Europe, death was reigned down on Jews and Muslim for centuries for worshipping the right god (they all worship the same god of Abraham) the wrong way.
Even if murder was plainly applicable, there is the question of when a pregnant woman becomes two individuals? Essentially, this is the question SCOTUS reflections on personhood involved.
And speaking from a theological perspective, there is the question why a woman should not stand in the stead of a demigod concerning any being living inside her body? It has never been clear to me why god alleges jurisdiction over me just because he played a causal role in my existence. My parents had a causal role in my existence, and a less speculative one, but do not have anything like the authority over me that god allegedly does. Nor does a farmer have such authority over his own livestock, which he likewise intervened in the conception of (artificial insemination is the norm concerning some modern livestock).
On top of this we have the fact that serious minded theologians, clerics, and worshipful people freely admit nothing like proof of god exists. This is the scientific problem of the greatest relevance to the abortion question.
So the question re abortion is actually purely legal and linguistic. There is no debate as to what species the tissue of a pre-personhood fetus or zygote is. There is no question as to whether the cells forming the pre-personhood fetus or zygote are alive.
There is debate as to whether it is ensouled, but that is not a scientific question. Rather it is a religious question and therefore legally irrelevant as religious propositions are forbidden from being enshrined in laws owing to the First Amenment. So this has no place in the legislature or in public policy either.
I am curious what you think pro-choice people believe and/or how you think the law works, such that you advocate their is something science can clarify in this debate?
In the end, your question makes no more sense than my query, "What is the mathematical evidence that the OP does not understand the abortion question or American law?"
Finally, the question I have never seen addressed is why, if abortion was murder based primarily on religious grounds, did it not come to be criminalized in toto until less than two hundred years ago in a religious traditions that are thousands of years old? Note to mention, the Bible enumerates countless reasons for legitimate murder that are far more spacious than abortion.
Government has a vested interest in abortion. It can encourage poorer populations to have abortions so that these populations do not become burdensome. It can encourage only the birth of healthy babies in other populations.
Medical insurance has a vested interest in abortions because there is less cost for abortions than full-term pregnancy care and delivery.
Clearly it is wrong for any agency who may have a vested interest in abortion to push their agenda when the bottom line is money.
Abortion, since it involves killing/ending life, is wrong. However, since no citizen is involved, the government cannot prosecute—nor in any way encourage—abortion. Medical insurance coverage cannot include abortion. If a woman (for any reason) decides to abort, then payment for the procedure is up to her. She has no government backing her that what she does is “legal”. It is a limbo-type situation of it is neither “legal” nor prosecutable. It is totally her responsibility to decide the morality and to pay for the procedure. No help from either government or insurance.
Is this overturning Roe vs Wade? Or, is it totally removing the topic from the political realm? I am very much in favor of the latter because as we see, if you truly want to make a mess of something, turn it over to the politicians.
Unfortunately the reason we pay for abortions is so we don't have to pay for a poor person's baby for 18 years. I don't mind paying welfare and foodstamps but you guys do. If you are willing to pay for the kid for 18 years feel free to ban abortion.
I don't think you have to pretend to be an asshole. I think you have to pretend to not be a racist asshole.I've been pretending to be a Republican asshole lately. Or, there are some things I agree with Republicans on. Half of me says we should cut welfare. Poor women have kids because they know they can afford it because government pays for it. The part of me that says we are overpopulated wants to discourage poor people from having kids, especially accidents who's fathers won't be involved emotionally or financially..When did you flip flop on this. Your argument was that you didn't want to pay. Now all of a sudden you are a saint? Give me a break, liar. You are literally accusing others of what you do. You intentionally misstate the Republican position on helping the poor. I think we care considerably more than your white trash ass does. Or did you already forget your racist rant? Black People Don't Know How To ActI would like to approach this from a different perspective.To be murdered under the US Constitution requires one be a "person." But that is not a scientific concept. Being a homo sapiens sapiens is a scientific concept. But personhood is a vague popular term that is often used in reference to the essence of being human, rather than the facticity of being of our species. It is often admitted as a quality androids might have in the future. And it is something people who are brain dead are often said to be lacking.
The Supreme Court ruled it is indeed such a term. And then defined it as not including the early stages of human development that precede viability. There is no room for scientific rebuttal (except fine tuning the date of viability).
Killing members of our species has never been defined as murder for all purposes. There is war, self defense, and criminal punishment. And historically there was dishonoring ones parents, family, or tribe, believing in the wrong god, being allegedly in league with the devil (virtually never a true allegation). Indeed in Europe, death was reigned down on Jews and Muslim for centuries for worshipping the right god (they all worship the same god of Abraham) the wrong way.
Even if murder was plainly applicable, there is the question of when a pregnant woman becomes two individuals? Essentially, this is the question SCOTUS reflections on personhood involved.
And speaking from a theological perspective, there is the question why a woman should not stand in the stead of a demigod concerning any being living inside her body? It has never been clear to me why god alleges jurisdiction over me just because he played a causal role in my existence. My parents had a causal role in my existence, and a less speculative one, but do not have anything like the authority over me that god allegedly does. Nor does a farmer have such authority over his own livestock, which he likewise intervened in the conception of (artificial insemination is the norm concerning some modern livestock).
On top of this we have the fact that serious minded theologians, clerics, and worshipful people freely admit nothing like proof of god exists. This is the scientific problem of the greatest relevance to the abortion question.
So the question re abortion is actually purely legal and linguistic. There is no debate as to what species the tissue of a pre-personhood fetus or zygote is. There is no question as to whether the cells forming the pre-personhood fetus or zygote are alive.
There is debate as to whether it is ensouled, but that is not a scientific question. Rather it is a religious question and therefore legally irrelevant as religious propositions are forbidden from being enshrined in laws owing to the First Amenment. So this has no place in the legislature or in public policy either.
I am curious what you think pro-choice people believe and/or how you think the law works, such that you advocate their is something science can clarify in this debate?
In the end, your question makes no more sense than my query, "What is the mathematical evidence that the OP does not understand the abortion question or American law?"
Finally, the question I have never seen addressed is why, if abortion was murder based primarily on religious grounds, did it not come to be criminalized in toto until less than two hundred years ago in a religious traditions that are thousands of years old? Note to mention, the Bible enumerates countless reasons for legitimate murder that are far more spacious than abortion.
Government has a vested interest in abortion. It can encourage poorer populations to have abortions so that these populations do not become burdensome. It can encourage only the birth of healthy babies in other populations.
Medical insurance has a vested interest in abortions because there is less cost for abortions than full-term pregnancy care and delivery.
Clearly it is wrong for any agency who may have a vested interest in abortion to push their agenda when the bottom line is money.
Abortion, since it involves killing/ending life, is wrong. However, since no citizen is involved, the government cannot prosecute—nor in any way encourage—abortion. Medical insurance coverage cannot include abortion. If a woman (for any reason) decides to abort, then payment for the procedure is up to her. She has no government backing her that what she does is “legal”. It is a limbo-type situation of it is neither “legal” nor prosecutable. It is totally her responsibility to decide the morality and to pay for the procedure. No help from either government or insurance.
Is this overturning Roe vs Wade? Or, is it totally removing the topic from the political realm? I am very much in favor of the latter because as we see, if you truly want to make a mess of something, turn it over to the politicians.
Unfortunately the reason we pay for abortions is so we don't have to pay for a poor person's baby for 18 years. I don't mind paying welfare and foodstamps but you guys do. If you are willing to pay for the kid for 18 years feel free to ban abortion.
Not an easy topic. One thing I am consistent about is I don't want to ban abortion. Ban foodstamps sure but not abortion. That would be cruel
Oh lighten up. You think you're such a great person but you're such a dick. You're the poster boy Christian.I don't think you have to pretend to be an asshole. I think you have to pretend to not be a racist asshole.I've been pretending to be a Republican asshole lately. Or, there are some things I agree with Republicans on. Half of me says we should cut welfare. Poor women have kids because they know they can afford it because government pays for it. The part of me that says we are overpopulated wants to discourage poor people from having kids, especially accidents who's fathers won't be involved emotionally or financially..When did you flip flop on this. Your argument was that you didn't want to pay. Now all of a sudden you are a saint? Give me a break, liar. You are literally accusing others of what you do. You intentionally misstate the Republican position on helping the poor. I think we care considerably more than your white trash ass does. Or did you already forget your racist rant? Black People Don't Know How To ActI would like to approach this from a different perspective.To be murdered under the US Constitution requires one be a "person." But that is not a scientific concept. Being a homo sapiens sapiens is a scientific concept. But personhood is a vague popular term that is often used in reference to the essence of being human, rather than the facticity of being of our species. It is often admitted as a quality androids might have in the future. And it is something people who are brain dead are often said to be lacking.
The Supreme Court ruled it is indeed such a term. And then defined it as not including the early stages of human development that precede viability. There is no room for scientific rebuttal (except fine tuning the date of viability).
Killing members of our species has never been defined as murder for all purposes. There is war, self defense, and criminal punishment. And historically there was dishonoring ones parents, family, or tribe, believing in the wrong god, being allegedly in league with the devil (virtually never a true allegation). Indeed in Europe, death was reigned down on Jews and Muslim for centuries for worshipping the right god (they all worship the same god of Abraham) the wrong way.
Even if murder was plainly applicable, there is the question of when a pregnant woman becomes two individuals? Essentially, this is the question SCOTUS reflections on personhood involved.
And speaking from a theological perspective, there is the question why a woman should not stand in the stead of a demigod concerning any being living inside her body? It has never been clear to me why god alleges jurisdiction over me just because he played a causal role in my existence. My parents had a causal role in my existence, and a less speculative one, but do not have anything like the authority over me that god allegedly does. Nor does a farmer have such authority over his own livestock, which he likewise intervened in the conception of (artificial insemination is the norm concerning some modern livestock).
On top of this we have the fact that serious minded theologians, clerics, and worshipful people freely admit nothing like proof of god exists. This is the scientific problem of the greatest relevance to the abortion question.
So the question re abortion is actually purely legal and linguistic. There is no debate as to what species the tissue of a pre-personhood fetus or zygote is. There is no question as to whether the cells forming the pre-personhood fetus or zygote are alive.
There is debate as to whether it is ensouled, but that is not a scientific question. Rather it is a religious question and therefore legally irrelevant as religious propositions are forbidden from being enshrined in laws owing to the First Amenment. So this has no place in the legislature or in public policy either.
I am curious what you think pro-choice people believe and/or how you think the law works, such that you advocate their is something science can clarify in this debate?
In the end, your question makes no more sense than my query, "What is the mathematical evidence that the OP does not understand the abortion question or American law?"
Finally, the question I have never seen addressed is why, if abortion was murder based primarily on religious grounds, did it not come to be criminalized in toto until less than two hundred years ago in a religious traditions that are thousands of years old? Note to mention, the Bible enumerates countless reasons for legitimate murder that are far more spacious than abortion.
Government has a vested interest in abortion. It can encourage poorer populations to have abortions so that these populations do not become burdensome. It can encourage only the birth of healthy babies in other populations.
Medical insurance has a vested interest in abortions because there is less cost for abortions than full-term pregnancy care and delivery.
Clearly it is wrong for any agency who may have a vested interest in abortion to push their agenda when the bottom line is money.
Abortion, since it involves killing/ending life, is wrong. However, since no citizen is involved, the government cannot prosecute—nor in any way encourage—abortion. Medical insurance coverage cannot include abortion. If a woman (for any reason) decides to abort, then payment for the procedure is up to her. She has no government backing her that what she does is “legal”. It is a limbo-type situation of it is neither “legal” nor prosecutable. It is totally her responsibility to decide the morality and to pay for the procedure. No help from either government or insurance.
Is this overturning Roe vs Wade? Or, is it totally removing the topic from the political realm? I am very much in favor of the latter because as we see, if you truly want to make a mess of something, turn it over to the politicians.
Unfortunately the reason we pay for abortions is so we don't have to pay for a poor person's baby for 18 years. I don't mind paying welfare and foodstamps but you guys do. If you are willing to pay for the kid for 18 years feel free to ban abortion.
Not an easy topic. One thing I am consistent about is I don't want to ban abortion. Ban foodstamps sure but not abortion. That would be cruel
Dude, I KNOW I am a dick. I never claimed otherwise. You are the prick who thinks he is special. I've got news for you... you're not.Oh lighten up. You think you're such a great person but you're such a dick. You're the poster boy Christian.I don't think you have to pretend to be an asshole. I think you have to pretend to not be a racist asshole.I've been pretending to be a Republican asshole lately. Or, there are some things I agree with Republicans on. Half of me says we should cut welfare. Poor women have kids because they know they can afford it because government pays for it. The part of me that says we are overpopulated wants to discourage poor people from having kids, especially accidents who's fathers won't be involved emotionally or financially..When did you flip flop on this. Your argument was that you didn't want to pay. Now all of a sudden you are a saint? Give me a break, liar. You are literally accusing others of what you do. You intentionally misstate the Republican position on helping the poor. I think we care considerably more than your white trash ass does. Or did you already forget your racist rant? Black People Don't Know How To ActI would like to approach this from a different perspective.
Government has a vested interest in abortion. It can encourage poorer populations to have abortions so that these populations do not become burdensome. It can encourage only the birth of healthy babies in other populations.
Medical insurance has a vested interest in abortions because there is less cost for abortions than full-term pregnancy care and delivery.
Clearly it is wrong for any agency who may have a vested interest in abortion to push their agenda when the bottom line is money.
Abortion, since it involves killing/ending life, is wrong. However, since no citizen is involved, the government cannot prosecute—nor in any way encourage—abortion. Medical insurance coverage cannot include abortion. If a woman (for any reason) decides to abort, then payment for the procedure is up to her. She has no government backing her that what she does is “legal”. It is a limbo-type situation of it is neither “legal” nor prosecutable. It is totally her responsibility to decide the morality and to pay for the procedure. No help from either government or insurance.
Is this overturning Roe vs Wade? Or, is it totally removing the topic from the political realm? I am very much in favor of the latter because as we see, if you truly want to make a mess of something, turn it over to the politicians.
Unfortunately the reason we pay for abortions is so we don't have to pay for a poor person's baby for 18 years. I don't mind paying welfare and foodstamps but you guys do. If you are willing to pay for the kid for 18 years feel free to ban abortion.
Not an easy topic. One thing I am consistent about is I don't want to ban abortion. Ban foodstamps sure but not abortion. That would be cruel
I would like to approach this from a different perspective.To be murdered under the US Constitution requires one be a "person." But that is not a scientific concept. Being a homo sapiens sapiens is a scientific concept. But personhood is a vague popular term that is often used in reference to the essence of being human, rather than the facticity of being of our species. It is often admitted as a quality androids might have in the future. And it is something people who are brain dead are often said to be lacking.
The Supreme Court ruled it is indeed such a term. And then defined it as not including the early stages of human development that precede viability. There is no room for scientific rebuttal (except fine tuning the date of viability).
Killing members of our species has never been defined as murder for all purposes. There is war, self defense, and criminal punishment. And historically there was dishonoring ones parents, family, or tribe, believing in the wrong god, being allegedly in league with the devil (virtually never a true allegation). Indeed in Europe, death was reigned down on Jews and Muslim for centuries for worshipping the right god (they all worship the same god of Abraham) the wrong way.
Even if murder was plainly applicable, there is the question of when a pregnant woman becomes two individuals? Essentially, this is the question SCOTUS reflections on personhood involved.
And speaking from a theological perspective, there is the question why a woman should not stand in the stead of a demigod concerning any being living inside her body? It has never been clear to me why god alleges jurisdiction over me just because he played a causal role in my existence. My parents had a causal role in my existence, and a less speculative one, but do not have anything like the authority over me that god allegedly does. Nor does a farmer have such authority over his own livestock, which he likewise intervened in the conception of (artificial insemination is the norm concerning some modern livestock).
On top of this we have the fact that serious minded theologians, clerics, and worshipful people freely admit nothing like proof of god exists. This is the scientific problem of the greatest relevance to the abortion question.
So the question re abortion is actually purely legal and linguistic. There is no debate as to what species the tissue of a pre-personhood fetus or zygote is. There is no question as to whether the cells forming the pre-personhood fetus or zygote are alive.
There is debate as to whether it is ensouled, but that is not a scientific question. Rather it is a religious question and therefore legally irrelevant as religious propositions are forbidden from being enshrined in laws owing to the First Amenment. So this has no place in the legislature or in public policy either.
I am curious what you think pro-choice people believe and/or how you think the law works, such that you advocate their is something science can clarify in this debate?
In the end, your question makes no more sense than my query, "What is the mathematical evidence that the OP does not understand the abortion question or American law?"
Finally, the question I have never seen addressed is why, if abortion was murder based primarily on religious grounds, did it not come to be criminalized in toto until less than two hundred years ago in a religious traditions that are thousands of years old? Note to mention, the Bible enumerates countless reasons for legitimate murder that are far more spacious than abortion.
Government has a vested interest in abortion. It can encourage poorer populations to have abortions so that these populations do not become burdensome. It can encourage only the birth of healthy babies in other populations.
Medical insurance has a vested interest in abortions because there is less cost for abortions than full-term pregnancy care and delivery.
Clearly it is wrong for any agency who may have a vested interest in abortion to push their agenda when the bottom line is money.
Abortion, since it involves killing/ending life, is wrong. However, since no citizen is involved, the government cannot prosecute—nor in any way encourage—abortion. Medical insurance coverage cannot include abortion. If a woman (for any reason) decides to abort, then payment for the procedure is up to her. She has no government backing her that what she does is “legal”. It is a limbo-type situation of it is neither “legal” nor prosecutable. It is totally her responsibility to decide the morality and to pay for the procedure. No help from either government or insurance.
Is this overturning Roe vs Wade? Or, is it totally removing the topic from the political realm? I am very much in favor of the latter because as we see, if you truly want to make a mess of something, turn it over to the politicians.
Unfortunately the reason we pay for abortions is so we don't have to pay for a poor person's baby for 18 years. I don't mind paying welfare and foodstamps but you guys do. If you are willing to pay for the kid for 18 years feel free to ban abortion.
Oh lighten up. You think you're such a great person but you're such a dick. You're the poster boy Christian.I don't think you have to pretend to be an asshole. I think you have to pretend to not be a racist asshole.I've been pretending to be a Republican asshole lately. Or, there are some things I agree with Republicans on. Half of me says we should cut welfare. Poor women have kids because they know they can afford it because government pays for it. The part of me that says we are overpopulated wants to discourage poor people from having kids, especially accidents who's fathers won't be involved emotionally or financially..When did you flip flop on this. Your argument was that you didn't want to pay. Now all of a sudden you are a saint? Give me a break, liar. You are literally accusing others of what you do. You intentionally misstate the Republican position on helping the poor. I think we care considerably more than your white trash ass does. Or did you already forget your racist rant? Black People Don't Know How To ActI would like to approach this from a different perspective.
Government has a vested interest in abortion. It can encourage poorer populations to have abortions so that these populations do not become burdensome. It can encourage only the birth of healthy babies in other populations.
Medical insurance has a vested interest in abortions because there is less cost for abortions than full-term pregnancy care and delivery.
Clearly it is wrong for any agency who may have a vested interest in abortion to push their agenda when the bottom line is money.
Abortion, since it involves killing/ending life, is wrong. However, since no citizen is involved, the government cannot prosecute—nor in any way encourage—abortion. Medical insurance coverage cannot include abortion. If a woman (for any reason) decides to abort, then payment for the procedure is up to her. She has no government backing her that what she does is “legal”. It is a limbo-type situation of it is neither “legal” nor prosecutable. It is totally her responsibility to decide the morality and to pay for the procedure. No help from either government or insurance.
Is this overturning Roe vs Wade? Or, is it totally removing the topic from the political realm? I am very much in favor of the latter because as we see, if you truly want to make a mess of something, turn it over to the politicians.
Unfortunately the reason we pay for abortions is so we don't have to pay for a poor person's baby for 18 years. I don't mind paying welfare and foodstamps but you guys do. If you are willing to pay for the kid for 18 years feel free to ban abortion.
Not an easy topic. One thing I am consistent about is I don't want to ban abortion. Ban foodstamps sure but not abortion. That would be cruel
Oh, and you sound like a 2007 Republican. Welcome back. Trump said he was gonna make America great again. Now we know that time was 2007 when Republicans help to blue collar was to tell them to save more.Capitalism needs poor people. Corporations need poor people to exploit. It's a fact. And our country needs those poor people to breed. And you Republicans certainly don't want to even pay them the minimumYou are in great company.
"A lie told often enough becomes the truth." - Vladimir Lenin
Not true. Flat out, not true.
You can be wealthy, and be a janitor.
Janitor secretly amassed an $8 million fortune, left most of it to library and hospital
What you said, is factually wrong.
The reason people are poor, is because they don't do what this janitor did. They don't save and invest.
The reason Warren Buffet is a billionaire today, is because when he was TEN... he was buying stock in companies, and investing money from his paper route.
You are wrong.
Welcome back! I was wondering how long it would take.
We never left. And 2007 was due to Clinton. Already covered that. It was Bill Clinton's push on sub-prime loans that caused the crash.
The only thing that Bush had to do with the 2007 crash, was the minimum wage hike. Which according to you, you want. Your policy crashed the economy. Why do you keep pushing it?
That did not mean banks could give everyone a ARM and finance 125% of a home value with nothing down. It also didn't mean relators could inflate the costs of homes to help get themselves rich. Not only low income lost their shirt, I blame the relators and Bush for not watching what was happening. Trump is right back at it, sub prime mortgages are coming back, and repealing of Frank Dodd. Like all Republicans they lead us into a recession so the corps and the elites can get more of the middle income money.
Oh, and you sound like a 2007 Republican. Welcome back. Trump said he was gonna make America great again. Now we know that time was 2007 when Republicans help to blue collar was to tell them to save more.Capitalism needs poor people. Corporations need poor people to exploit. It's a fact. And our country needs those poor people to breed. And you Republicans certainly don't want to even pay them the minimumYou are in great company.
"A lie told often enough becomes the truth." - Vladimir Lenin
Not true. Flat out, not true.
You can be wealthy, and be a janitor.
Janitor secretly amassed an $8 million fortune, left most of it to library and hospital
What you said, is factually wrong.
The reason people are poor, is because they don't do what this janitor did. They don't save and invest.
The reason Warren Buffet is a billionaire today, is because when he was TEN... he was buying stock in companies, and investing money from his paper route.
You are wrong.
Welcome back! I was wondering how long it would take.
We never left. And 2007 was due to Clinton. Already covered that. It was Bill Clinton's push on sub-prime loans that caused the crash.
The only thing that Bush had to do with the 2007 crash, was the minimum wage hike. Which according to you, you want. Your policy crashed the economy. Why do you keep pushing it?The no more child care credits could possibly put some parents back home with their small children where they should be. The poor and single parents in many cases will still need some sort of assistance but at least for some of them their children would have a parent there for them. Some of these mega child care facilities in the bigger cities truly suck. Many kids are put there in those facilities daily by parents whether healthy or sick when the parents are stuck in the "gotta have a job or your a piece of shit" grinder.what an interesting idea-------what would be the outcome of such a
policy?. I am not familiar with "bail outs" for companies-----I am familiar
with federally insured banks-----it the federal insurance on bank accounts
something to which you object?
Let's let liberals destroy the family unit...then whine we need facilities for kids of single mothers. That will work great!
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Yet Republicans revoted this nice family man in, these are your anti abortion Reps, do what we say, not what we do, we also have a Republican here who is anti abortion even though his wife admitted to having an abortion in HS. You fake holier than thou people are such hypocrites. Trump and his black bible is another oxymoran, a cheater and charlatan for all his life.
Congressman Scott DesJarlais, the pro-life, all-family values Tennessee Republican who cheated on his wife and then pressured his mistress to have an abortion, voted this week in favor of a federal 2o-week abortion ban. DesJarlais’ spokesperson said the congressman has “always supported pro-life values”—except, of course, when they might negatively impact his life.
the "P" entity gets dummer and dummer A man's wife had an abortion in
High School------so according to "P" -----that man can not be permitted to be anti abortion -------trump has a bible that is an "oxymoran" <<<whatevah dat is.
ppsssssst....... 20 weeks of FIVE MONTHS!!!! the standard cut off time for abortion-----
How about this POS:
Congressman Scott DesJarlais, the pro-life, all-family values Tennessee Republican who cheated on his wife and then pressured his mistress to have an abortion, voted this week in favor of a federal 2o-week abortion ban. DesJarlais’ spokesperson said the congressman has “always supported pro-life values”—except, of course, when they might negatively impact his life.
They had choices , yet want to take choice away.
Oh, and you sound like a 2007 Republican. Welcome back. Trump said he was gonna make America great again. Now we know that time was 2007 when Republicans help to blue collar was to tell them to save more.Capitalism needs poor people. Corporations need poor people to exploit. It's a fact. And our country needs those poor people to breed. And you Republicans certainly don't want to even pay them the minimum
Not true. Flat out, not true.
You can be wealthy, and be a janitor.
Janitor secretly amassed an $8 million fortune, left most of it to library and hospital
What you said, is factually wrong.
The reason people are poor, is because they don't do what this janitor did. They don't save and invest.
The reason Warren Buffet is a billionaire today, is because when he was TEN... he was buying stock in companies, and investing money from his paper route.
You are wrong.
Welcome back! I was wondering how long it would take.
We never left. And 2007 was due to Clinton. Already covered that. It was Bill Clinton's push on sub-prime loans that caused the crash.
The only thing that Bush had to do with the 2007 crash, was the minimum wage hike. Which according to you, you want. Your policy crashed the economy. Why do you keep pushing it?The no more child care credits could possibly put some parents back home with their small children where they should be. The poor and single parents in many cases will still need some sort of assistance but at least for some of them their children would have a parent there for them. Some of these mega child care facilities in the bigger cities truly suck. Many kids are put there in those facilities daily by parents whether healthy or sick when the parents are stuck in the "gotta have a job or your a piece of shit" grinder.
Let's let liberals destroy the family unit...then whine we need facilities for kids of single mothers. That will work great!
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Yet Republicans revoted this nice family man in, these are your anti abortion Reps, do what we say, not what we do, we also have a Republican here who is anti abortion even though his wife admitted to having an abortion in HS. You fake holier than thou people are such hypocrites. Trump and his black bible is another oxymoran, a cheater and charlatan for all his life.
Congressman Scott DesJarlais, the pro-life, all-family values Tennessee Republican who cheated on his wife and then pressured his mistress to have an abortion, voted this week in favor of a federal 2o-week abortion ban. DesJarlais’ spokesperson said the congressman has “always supported pro-life values”—except, of course, when they might negatively impact his life.
the "P" entity gets dummer and dummer A man's wife had an abortion in
High School------so according to "P" -----that man can not be permitted to be anti abortion -------trump has a bible that is an "oxymoran" <<<whatevah dat is.
ppsssssst....... 20 weeks of FIVE MONTHS!!!! the standard cut off time for abortion-----
How about this POS:
Congressman Scott DesJarlais, the pro-life, all-family values Tennessee Republican who cheated on his wife and then pressured his mistress to have an abortion, voted this week in favor of a federal 2o-week abortion ban. DesJarlais’ spokesperson said the congressman has “always supported pro-life values”—except, of course, when they might negatively impact his life.
They had choices , yet want to take choice away.
So? What's your point? I don't know why you think that makes a point. Here's a guy that cheated on his wife, and wanted to cover it up with an abortion.
The point I'm getting from this, is that abortion is used by scum bags to hide their bad choices.
You support men cheating on their wives, and hiding it by murdering the child?
Is that your great support of abortion, so that men can hide immoral behavior, and cheat?
You just outlined why I'm against abortion. Good job. Thanks for making my case. Any questions?
Oh, and you sound like a 2007 Republican. Welcome back. Trump said he was gonna make America great again. Now we know that time was 2007 when Republicans help to blue collar was to tell them to save more.Capitalism needs poor people. Corporations need poor people to exploit. It's a fact. And our country needs those poor people to breed. And you Republicans certainly don't want to even pay them the minimum
Not true. Flat out, not true.
You can be wealthy, and be a janitor.
Janitor secretly amassed an $8 million fortune, left most of it to library and hospital
What you said, is factually wrong.
The reason people are poor, is because they don't do what this janitor did. They don't save and invest.
The reason Warren Buffet is a billionaire today, is because when he was TEN... he was buying stock in companies, and investing money from his paper route.
You are wrong.
Welcome back! I was wondering how long it would take.
We never left. And 2007 was due to Clinton. Already covered that. It was Bill Clinton's push on sub-prime loans that caused the crash.
The only thing that Bush had to do with the 2007 crash, was the minimum wage hike. Which according to you, you want. Your policy crashed the economy. Why do you keep pushing it?
That did not mean banks could give everyone a ARM and finance 125% of a home value with nothing down. It also didn't mean relators could inflate the costs of homes to help get themselves rich. Not only low income lost their shirt, I blame the relators and Bush for not watching what was happening. Trump is right back at it, sub prime mortgages are coming back, and repealing of Frank Dodd. Like all Republicans they lead us into a recession so the corps and the elites can get more of the middle income money.
Relators have no effect on price. The market determines the price. Where do you get that strange idea? When I bought my Condo, they had it listed at $75K I think, somewhere around there. I offered $60k. You think I cared what the Realtor said?
Initially they said no, but after a month, with no one offering anything close to $75, they accepted my $60k offer. Realtors have no control over the price. The buyers and sellers do.
Second, why are blaming bush for not seeing something that was government policy? Obama literally sued banks to FORCE THEM to make bad loans. Bill Clinton's administration, literally forced banks to make bad loans. Specifically make loans that the buyer did not qualify for. That was the official position of the US government. And by the way, they knew, and admitted that default rates would be higher for these loans. They said this! Openly!
You are saying "well bush should have noticed".... noticed what? That banks were doing as the government ordered them to do?
Increasing home ownership rates was the direct official policy of the US government, and through Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, intended to achieve this policy through lowering of the standards.
And here's the other problem... the Bubble started years before Bush was in office. Even if he alone did realize the problem... there was nothing he could do to stop it. I don't know what magic wand you think government has, to stop a price bubble. There is no such wand. Once a bubble starts, it goes until it pops. There is no other outcome.
Oh, and you sound like a 2007 Republican. Welcome back. Trump said he was gonna make America great again. Now we know that time was 2007 when Republicans help to blue collar was to tell them to save more.Not true. Flat out, not true.
You can be wealthy, and be a janitor.
Janitor secretly amassed an $8 million fortune, left most of it to library and hospital
What you said, is factually wrong.
The reason people are poor, is because they don't do what this janitor did. They don't save and invest.
The reason Warren Buffet is a billionaire today, is because when he was TEN... he was buying stock in companies, and investing money from his paper route.
You are wrong.
Welcome back! I was wondering how long it would take.
We never left. And 2007 was due to Clinton. Already covered that. It was Bill Clinton's push on sub-prime loans that caused the crash.
The only thing that Bush had to do with the 2007 crash, was the minimum wage hike. Which according to you, you want. Your policy crashed the economy. Why do you keep pushing it?Let's let liberals destroy the family unit...then whine we need facilities for kids of single mothers. That will work great!
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Yet Republicans revoted this nice family man in, these are your anti abortion Reps, do what we say, not what we do, we also have a Republican here who is anti abortion even though his wife admitted to having an abortion in HS. You fake holier than thou people are such hypocrites. Trump and his black bible is another oxymoran, a cheater and charlatan for all his life.
Congressman Scott DesJarlais, the pro-life, all-family values Tennessee Republican who cheated on his wife and then pressured his mistress to have an abortion, voted this week in favor of a federal 2o-week abortion ban. DesJarlais’ spokesperson said the congressman has “always supported pro-life values”—except, of course, when they might negatively impact his life.
the "P" entity gets dummer and dummer A man's wife had an abortion in
High School------so according to "P" -----that man can not be permitted to be anti abortion -------trump has a bible that is an "oxymoran" <<<whatevah dat is.
ppsssssst....... 20 weeks of FIVE MONTHS!!!! the standard cut off time for abortion-----
How about this POS:
Congressman Scott DesJarlais, the pro-life, all-family values Tennessee Republican who cheated on his wife and then pressured his mistress to have an abortion, voted this week in favor of a federal 2o-week abortion ban. DesJarlais’ spokesperson said the congressman has “always supported pro-life values”—except, of course, when they might negatively impact his life.
They had choices , yet want to take choice away.
So? What's your point? I don't know why you think that makes a point. Here's a guy that cheated on his wife, and wanted to cover it up with an abortion.
The point I'm getting from this, is that abortion is used by scum bags to hide their bad choices.
You support men cheating on their wives, and hiding it by murdering the child?
Is that your great support of abortion, so that men can hide immoral behavior, and cheat?
You just outlined why I'm against abortion. Good job. Thanks for making my case. Any questions?
The hypocrisy of pro life people is sickening. Most of you so called Christians are low life's and use abortion as a vote. You are a hypocrite , another man voting against choice. You are pro birth, not pro life. I find you Republicans are repulsive, that guy is a Republican Congressman who votes pro life .
He says he is but who knows what he is.Oh lighten up. You think you're such a great person but you're such a dick. You're the poster boy Christian.I don't think you have to pretend to be an asshole. I think you have to pretend to not be a racist asshole.I've been pretending to be a Republican asshole lately. Or, there are some things I agree with Republicans on. Half of me says we should cut welfare. Poor women have kids because they know they can afford it because government pays for it. The part of me that says we are overpopulated wants to discourage poor people from having kids, especially accidents who's fathers won't be involved emotionally or financially..When did you flip flop on this. Your argument was that you didn't want to pay. Now all of a sudden you are a saint? Give me a break, liar. You are literally accusing others of what you do. You intentionally misstate the Republican position on helping the poor. I think we care considerably more than your white trash ass does. Or did you already forget your racist rant? Black People Don't Know How To ActUnfortunately the reason we pay for abortions is so we don't have to pay for a poor person's baby for 18 years. I don't mind paying welfare and foodstamps but you guys do. If you are willing to pay for the kid for 18 years feel free to ban abortion.
Not an easy topic. One thing I am consistent about is I don't want to ban abortion. Ban foodstamps sure but not abortion. That would be cruel
I have no idea if he's a Christian, but I know for certain, he's a better person than you.
Why you blame Obama?Oh, and you sound like a 2007 Republican. Welcome back. Trump said he was gonna make America great again. Now we know that time was 2007 when Republicans help to blue collar was to tell them to save more.Capitalism needs poor people. Corporations need poor people to exploit. It's a fact. And our country needs those poor people to breed. And you Republicans certainly don't want to even pay them the minimum
Not true. Flat out, not true.
You can be wealthy, and be a janitor.
Janitor secretly amassed an $8 million fortune, left most of it to library and hospital
What you said, is factually wrong.
The reason people are poor, is because they don't do what this janitor did. They don't save and invest.
The reason Warren Buffet is a billionaire today, is because when he was TEN... he was buying stock in companies, and investing money from his paper route.
You are wrong.
Welcome back! I was wondering how long it would take.
We never left. And 2007 was due to Clinton. Already covered that. It was Bill Clinton's push on sub-prime loans that caused the crash.
The only thing that Bush had to do with the 2007 crash, was the minimum wage hike. Which according to you, you want. Your policy crashed the economy. Why do you keep pushing it?
That did not mean banks could give everyone a ARM and finance 125% of a home value with nothing down. It also didn't mean relators could inflate the costs of homes to help get themselves rich. Not only low income lost their shirt, I blame the relators and Bush for not watching what was happening. Trump is right back at it, sub prime mortgages are coming back, and repealing of Frank Dodd. Like all Republicans they lead us into a recession so the corps and the elites can get more of the middle income money.
Relators have no effect on price. The market determines the price. Where do you get that strange idea? When I bought my Condo, they had it listed at $75K I think, somewhere around there. I offered $60k. You think I cared what the Realtor said?
Initially they said no, but after a month, with no one offering anything close to $75, they accepted my $60k offer. Realtors have no control over the price. The buyers and sellers do.
Second, why are blaming bush for not seeing something that was government policy? Obama literally sued banks to FORCE THEM to make bad loans. Bill Clinton's administration, literally forced banks to make bad loans. Specifically make loans that the buyer did not qualify for. That was the official position of the US government. And by the way, they knew, and admitted that default rates would be higher for these loans. They said this! Openly!
You are saying "well bush should have noticed".... noticed what? That banks were doing as the government ordered them to do?
Increasing home ownership rates was the direct official policy of the US government, and through Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, intended to achieve this policy through lowering of the standards.
And here's the other problem... the Bubble started years before Bush was in office. Even if he alone did realize the problem... there was nothing he could do to stop it. I don't know what magic wand you think government has, to stop a price bubble. There is no such wand. Once a bubble starts, it goes until it pops. There is no other outcome.
Oh, and you sound like a 2007 Republican. Welcome back. Trump said he was gonna make America great again. Now we know that time was 2007 when Republicans help to blue collar was to tell them to save more.Not true. Flat out, not true.
You can be wealthy, and be a janitor.
Janitor secretly amassed an $8 million fortune, left most of it to library and hospital
What you said, is factually wrong.
The reason people are poor, is because they don't do what this janitor did. They don't save and invest.
The reason Warren Buffet is a billionaire today, is because when he was TEN... he was buying stock in companies, and investing money from his paper route.
You are wrong.
Welcome back! I was wondering how long it would take.
We never left. And 2007 was due to Clinton. Already covered that. It was Bill Clinton's push on sub-prime loans that caused the crash.
The only thing that Bush had to do with the 2007 crash, was the minimum wage hike. Which according to you, you want. Your policy crashed the economy. Why do you keep pushing it?
That did not mean banks could give everyone a ARM and finance 125% of a home value with nothing down. It also didn't mean relators could inflate the costs of homes to help get themselves rich. Not only low income lost their shirt, I blame the relators and Bush for not watching what was happening. Trump is right back at it, sub prime mortgages are coming back, and repealing of Frank Dodd. Like all Republicans they lead us into a recession so the corps and the elites can get more of the middle income money.
Relators have no effect on price. The market determines the price. Where do you get that strange idea? When I bought my Condo, they had it listed at $75K I think, somewhere around there. I offered $60k. You think I cared what the Realtor said?
Initially they said no, but after a month, with no one offering anything close to $75, they accepted my $60k offer. Realtors have no control over the price. The buyers and sellers do.
Second, why are blaming bush for not seeing something that was government policy? Obama literally sued banks to FORCE THEM to make bad loans. Bill Clinton's administration, literally forced banks to make bad loans. Specifically make loans that the buyer did not qualify for. That was the official position of the US government. And by the way, they knew, and admitted that default rates would be higher for these loans. They said this! Openly!
You are saying "well bush should have noticed".... noticed what? That banks were doing as the government ordered them to do?
Increasing home ownership rates was the direct official policy of the US government, and through Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, intended to achieve this policy through lowering of the standards.
And here's the other problem... the Bubble started years before Bush was in office. Even if he alone did realize the problem... there was nothing he could do to stop it. I don't know what magic wand you think government has, to stop a price bubble. There is no such wand. Once a bubble starts, it goes until it pops. There is no other outcome.
All your accusations are crazy. Which is why we have Frank Dodd, now go back and reread the OP and know who you are. Clinton did not force banks to give ARM's and to finance 125% of their home value. Yes the realtors were involved. Many made a killing.
Now go back and reread the OP and repent of yourself.
Oh, and you sound like a 2007 Republican. Welcome back. Trump said he was gonna make America great again. Now we know that time was 2007 when Republicans help to blue collar was to tell them to save more.
Welcome back! I was wondering how long it would take.
We never left. And 2007 was due to Clinton. Already covered that. It was Bill Clinton's push on sub-prime loans that caused the crash.
The only thing that Bush had to do with the 2007 crash, was the minimum wage hike. Which according to you, you want. Your policy crashed the economy. Why do you keep pushing it?
That did not mean banks could give everyone a ARM and finance 125% of a home value with nothing down. It also didn't mean relators could inflate the costs of homes to help get themselves rich. Not only low income lost their shirt, I blame the relators and Bush for not watching what was happening. Trump is right back at it, sub prime mortgages are coming back, and repealing of Frank Dodd. Like all Republicans they lead us into a recession so the corps and the elites can get more of the middle income money.
Relators have no effect on price. The market determines the price. Where do you get that strange idea? When I bought my Condo, they had it listed at $75K I think, somewhere around there. I offered $60k. You think I cared what the Realtor said?
Initially they said no, but after a month, with no one offering anything close to $75, they accepted my $60k offer. Realtors have no control over the price. The buyers and sellers do.
Second, why are blaming bush for not seeing something that was government policy? Obama literally sued banks to FORCE THEM to make bad loans. Bill Clinton's administration, literally forced banks to make bad loans. Specifically make loans that the buyer did not qualify for. That was the official position of the US government. And by the way, they knew, and admitted that default rates would be higher for these loans. They said this! Openly!
You are saying "well bush should have noticed".... noticed what? That banks were doing as the government ordered them to do?
Increasing home ownership rates was the direct official policy of the US government, and through Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, intended to achieve this policy through lowering of the standards.
And here's the other problem... the Bubble started years before Bush was in office. Even if he alone did realize the problem... there was nothing he could do to stop it. I don't know what magic wand you think government has, to stop a price bubble. There is no such wand. Once a bubble starts, it goes until it pops. There is no other outcome.
All your accusations are crazy. Which is why we have Frank Dodd, now go back and reread the OP and know who you are. Clinton did not force banks to give ARM's and to finance 125% of their home value. Yes the realtors were involved. Many made a killing.
Now go back and reread the OP and repent of yourself.
Watch Democrats call Republicans racist for warning of lending problems.
The hypocrisy of pro life people is sickening. Most of you so called Christians are low life's and use abortion as a vote. You are a hypocrite , another man voting against choice. You are pro birth, not pro life. I find you Republicans are repulsive, must be where the repu came from.
Looks like you guys are trying to overturn Roe V Wade
