2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: punaperson on September 18, 2020, 02:45:07 PM
-
Who to replace Ginsburg and when?
Asking for a friend.
But I'd suggest announcing the nominee tomorrow, and having McConnell announce on Monday that the Senate confirmation hearing will start the following Monday. Too soon? :rofl:
[EDIT: My apologies, there is already a thread running in "Political Discussion"]
-
Ted Cruz
-
Judge Judy
-
Not exactly my preference... but that was fast...
Word is nominee will be announced within a few days and McConnell says Trump's nominee will get a vote from the full Senate. So there!
-
Hardman or Barrett. Announce nominee today. He already has a list. Start confirmation on Monday. Vote by October 15. 2A may just become a true right for everyone.
-
Who to replace Ginsburg and when?
Asking for a friend.
But I'd suggest announcing the nominee tomorrow, and having McConnell announce on Monday that the Senate confirmation hearing will start the following Monday. Too soon? :rofl:
[EDIT: My apologies, there is already a thread running in "Political Discussion"]
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=38106.new#new
-
McConnell called President Obama a lame duck for wanting to appoint a justice with just 10 months left in office.
Let's see what McConnell will do now in this situation.
Maybe 4D chess?
Wait, win the senate, win the presidency and keep winning for America
-
McConnell called President Obama a lame duck for wanting to appoint a justice with just 10 months left in office.
Let's see what McConnell will do now in this situation.
Maybe 4D chess?
Wait, win the senate, win the presidency and keep winning for America
I would say it’s different considering Obama was not up for re-election. While It’d be boss like of Trump to hold off on nominating till after the election I’m not sure if it’s really worth it.
-
Here is a tweet from the lead litigator in Young v. Hawaii hired by the state and county of Hawaii to continue to deny us our rights.
Neal Katyal
@neal_katyal
This seat will be filled in due time. If Trump tries to rush it, he will be monkeying with the Court, w/devastating consequences. The Democrats will have options, incl increasing the size of the Supreme Court. For now, let's take a deep breath and remember the legacy RBG left us
* * * * *
"monkeying"? Haha. Good one.
"devastating consequences"? You mean like people in Hawaii might find fewer of their constitutionally-protected natural individual rights infringed? Yeah, that would be devastating for sure.
"increasing the size of the Supreme Court"? I believe you mean "packing the Court".
Hey Neal, fuck you.
-
Hardman or Barrett. Announce nominee today. He already has a list. Start confirmation on Monday. Vote by October 15. 2A may just become a true right for everyone.
Gloria the Red already has witnesses lined up, regardless of who the nominee is.
-
Hardman or Barrett. Announce nominee today. He already has a list. Start confirmation on Monday. Vote by October 15. 2A may just become a true right for everyone.
As much as I concur/wish/hope in all you write, I also have to say "Hold up there Big Fella! "2A may just become a true right for everyone." Now you've gone too far!" :geekdanc:
-
Gloria the Red already has witnesses lined up, regardless of who the nominee is.
But it's unlikely all the unwitnessed unconfirmed unreported rape allegations from 30 years ago will be used on Barrett (being a female and all... but who knows? I'm sure they have a ton of oppo "research" on her too).
-
But it's unlikely all the unwitnessed unconfirmed unreported rape allegations from 30 years ago will be used on Barrett (being a female and all... but who knows? I'm sure they have a ton of oppo "research" on her too).
Yes, but what do we know about her husband?
Is he in Jeffrey Epstein's Rolodex?
-
Yes, but what do we know about her husband?
Is he in Jeffrey Epstein's Rolodex?
And I'm sure they'll be carefully and thoroughly looking into the behavioral history of the family dog. Could be "disqualifying". smh.
-
I despise the fact that Trump is playing identity politics and nominating a woman specifically. He already said so. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t care if the nominee is a woman or a man. I just want the best nominee whether they be man or woman.
-
I despise the fact that Trump is playing identity politics and nominating a woman specifically. He already said so. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t care if the nominee is a woman or a man. I just want the best nominee whether they be man or woman.
In today’s world, you can also list “other” as to what sex you are. For real, I just sent in my CCW renewal for AZ & UT and under the question of sex I had 3 choices, male, female, other. I wanted to put occasionally.
-
I despise the fact that Trump is playing identity politics and nominating a woman specifically. He already said so. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t care if the nominee is a woman or a man. I just want the best nominee whether they be man or woman.
I kinda cringed when he did that too. But after thinking about I I’ll bet he already had the pick in mind. Keep in mind Amy Barret was a runner up to Kavanaugh. I think he’s just hyping up the pick because he already knew who he’d pick.
-
Who to replace Ginsburg and when?
Asking for a friend.
But I'd suggest announcing the nominee tomorrow, and having McConnell announce on Monday that the Senate confirmation hearing will start the following Monday. Too soon? :rofl:
[EDIT: My apologies, there is already a thread running in "Political Discussion"]
The "when" is Saturday, according to Trump. I wish I knew which "who" it should be. There are 12 women on his list. He said he is seriously considering five. He met with Barrett yesterday.and is to meet with Lagoa on Friday. A plethora of Democrats voted to confirm Lagoa, not so with Barrett.
If my choice were based solely on the Second Amendment then I would choose Florida Supreme Court Justice, Charles Canady. He wrote the dissent in Norman v. Florida.
-
In today’s world, you can also list “other” as to what sex you are. For real, I just sent in my CCW renewal for AZ & UT and under the question of sex I had 3 choices, male, female, other. I wanted to put occasionally.
They don’t have an option for YES! OFTEN under sex. Or no I’m a unic. Discrimination I say!
-
I kinda cringed when he did that too. But after thinking about I I’ll bet he already had the pick in mind. Keep in mind Amy Barret was a runner up to Kavanaugh. I think he’s just hyping up the pick because he already knew who he’d pick.
I am pretty sure you are right. He had her in mind already. I also think it is strategic his wanting to nominate a woman. First woman on SCOTUS that has read the constitution and understands it. Now that is an accomplishment! :lol:
-
I just hope whoever it is doesn't destroy some freedoms to gain others. Aka cancel roe v wade and give us 2a rights. I think that will only bring us backward. Religion should stop influencing politics. Judges should be non biased.
-
I am pretty sure you are right. He had her in mind already. I also think it is strategic his wanting to nominate a woman. First woman on SCOTUS that has read the constitution and understands it. Now that is an accomplishment! :lol:
I believe her gender is incidental, not a criteria for Trump to consider for selection. He has 2 lists of potential candidates, and 5 of the short list are women, so I heard.
The fact that his top choice is a woman offers additional advantages. It'll be harder to accuse her of any sexual assault or harassment, it replaces a woman with a woman, and having a woman on the SCOTUS helps the optics should they ever make rulings regarding Roe v Wade.
No matter how the President feels about identity politics, the Left and the Media will use that to their advantage whenever possible. Putting a woman in that seat diffuses a good number of their identity-based attacks.
Remember, the party that decries a country founded and run by "a bunch of old, white guys" is running the oldest, whitest guy they could have chosen in the primaries. Identity politics appears to only apply when they feel like it.
-
I just hope whoever it is doesn't destroy some freedoms to gain others. Aka cancel roe v wade and give us 2a rights. I think that will only bring us backward. Religion should stop influencing politics. Judges should be non biased.
Roe V. Wade was just bad law. The right to privacy is not in the Constitution, so to extrapolate that into having an abortion was nothing more than a decision looking for a legal justification, no matter how flimsy.
Ever wonder why a woman can kill a baby growing inside her because "her body, her choice", but you can't take drugs recreationally? She's killing a growing child, while you'd only be hurting yourself.
Doesn't seem like equal protection under the law, does it?
But, let's ask Ruthie how she felt...
“My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She
would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and
the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than
women’s rights.
“Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said.
“It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered,
it was physician-centered.”
https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit
-
I just hope whoever it is doesn't destroy some freedoms to gain others. Aka cancel roe v wade and give us 2a rights. I think that will only bring us backward. Religion should stop influencing politics. Judges should be non biased.
reality doesn't work that way...
-
Roe V. Wade was just bad law. The right to privacy is not in the Constitution, so to extrapolate that into having an abortion was nothing more than a decision looking for a legal justification, no matter how flimsy.
Ever wonder why a woman can kill a baby growing inside her because "her body, her choice", but you can't take drugs recreationally? She's killing a growing child, while you'd only be hurting yourself.
Doesn't seem like equal protection under the law, does it?
But, let's ask Ruthie how she felt...
https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit
Tbh I think drugs and other things should be legal. Along with suicide and selling parts of your body. That's all personal freedom.
But that's another discussion. But the difference is that the manufacturer of the products and distribution is trouble. Aborting is truly only affecting yourself. Taking meth, means someone most likely gang related sold it. Someone cooked it etc etc.
-
reality doesn't work that way...
Doesn't mean we shouldn't stop striving for it. I think putting a religious nut is anti effort
-
Tbh I think drugs and other things should be legal. Along with suicide and selling parts of your body. That's all personal freedom.
But that's another discussion. But the difference is that the manufacturer of the products and distribution is trouble. Aborting is truly only affecting yourself. Taking meth, means someone most likely gang related sold it. Someone cooked it etc etc.
If the drugs were legal to possess and use, the criminal elements of production and distribution would be destroyed.
Corporations would be importing, growing, producing and selling the substances, and the gov't would be taxing and regulating them for safety, just like all other prescription and OTC drugs now.
No need for a black market when there's free and open trade on the legitimate markets.
-
Doesn't mean we shouldn't stop striving for it. I think putting a religious nut is anti effort
having strong religious convictions doesn't make you a "religious nut"...
-
having strong religious convictions doesn't make you a "religious nut"...
According to Liberal dogma, Christians who go to church 1-2 times a week are religious nuts, but Muslims are members of an oppressed culture who happen to pray to Mecca 5 times a day, 7 days a week.
:wacko:
-
Only quoting you cause it's easier.
But I keep hearing people talk about rolling back rulings on old cases, and now women's rights will be taken away. Etc, etc, etc.
But does that mean the court can review any prior case whenever it wants and make a new ruling? Is there a "due process" involved?
Or is that just liberal hype?
-
I just hope whoever it is doesn't destroy some freedoms to gain others. Aka cancel roe v wade and give us 2a rights. I think that will only bring us backward. Religion should stop influencing politics. Judges should be non biased.
There are sound arguments, philosophical, ethical, and legal, against abortion, homosexual "marriage", "transgender" participation in female sports, etc. that don't depend even one iota on any religious belief or doctrine.
You sound like that libertarian whose video is posted on the other thread in "political" who wants a justice that will affirm hard core arms rights but not interfere with the (all-time misleading euphemism) "right to choose". The "official" libertarian line is also "open borders" because there is no clear and direct individual harmed when a non-U.S. citizen steps into the territory of the U.S. without having undergone the current legal process. People who have neither harmed anyone nor have any intent to harm anyone "should" be allowed to travel freely, right?
You're not likely to find a lawyer/judge who believes in "originalism", or the "text, history, and tradition" mode of Constitutional interpretation/understanding and therefore strongly supports the rights protected by the Second Amendment and who at the same time thinks that abortions should be "legal" because of some "right to privacy" lurking in some penumbra somewhere. Just sayin'...
-
There are sound arguments, philosophical, ethical, and legal, against abortion, homosexual "marriage", "transgender" participation in female sports, etc. that don't depend even one iota on any religious belief or doctrine.
You sound like that libertarian whose video is posted on the other thread in "political" who wants a justice that will affirm hard core arms rights but not interfere with the (all-time misleading euphemism) "right to choose". The "official" libertarian line is also "open borders" because there is no clear and direct individual harmed when a non-U.S. citizen steps into the territory of the U.S. without having undergone the current legal process. People who have neither harmed anyone nor have any intent to harm anyone "should" be allowed to travel freely, right?
You're not likely to find a lawyer/judge who believes in "originalism", or the "text, history, and tradition" mode of Constitutional interpretation/understanding and therefore strongly supports the rights protected by the Second Amendment and who at the same time thinks that abortions should be "legal" because of some "right to privacy" lurking in some penumbra somewhere. Just sayin'...
I am not really an libertarian though I do share many of the beliefs. To this day I have things I agree with all 3 different parties. As for the open borders. I am not against a country ruling the entire world then we can establish universal freedoms. Until then borders are important because countries are important and patriotism is good. My freedoms shouldn't be infringed by others who don't pay taxes and respect the law.
As to the orginialism why wouldn't I? IF they truly believed in the constitution they can see the forefathers beyond clearly wanted the separation of state and religion. Anti abortion is only a religious concept.
-
If the drugs were legal to possess and use, the criminal elements of production and distribution would be destroyed.
Corporations would be importing, growing, producing and selling the substances, and the gov't would be taxing and regulating them for safety, just like all other prescription and OTC drugs now.
No need for a black market when there's free and open trade on the legitimate markets.
I agree. In an ideal world I would be glad to see both abortion and drugs to be legalized. With the only caviot that the drugs be regulated for safety. We don't want cartels becoming corporations while still doing violence. They must be 100% legit. Just like those who perform abortions are in clinics with proper medical clearances.
-
I am not really an libertarian though I do share many of the beliefs. To this day I have things I agree with all 3 different parties. As for the open borders. I am not against a country ruling the entire world then we can establish universal freedoms. Until then borders are important because countries are important and patriotism is good. My freedoms shouldn't be infringed by others who don't pay taxes and respect the law.
As to the orginialism why wouldn't I? IF they truly believed in the constitution they can see the forefathers beyond clearly wanted the separation of state and religion. Anti abortion is only a religious concept.
That is a false statement, as I noted in my comment: There are philosophical, ethical, medical, and legal arguments against abortion that are in no way dependent upon any religious belief or doctrine.
-
That is a false statement, as I noted in my comment: There are philosophical, ethical, medical, and legal arguments against abortion that are in no way dependent upon any religious belief or doctrine.
Please explain those concepts. I have never heard them being in used before.
-
Please explain those concepts. I have never heard them being in used before.
Scientific: Life begins at conception. You don't have to base that opinion on religion. Science tells us that as soon as an egg is fertilized, it develops a DNA profile that is a combination of the parents' DNA that's unique from either parent. If allowed to develop, the embryo created will be as viable in 9 months as any child. Believing that a child must be separated from the mother to be counted as a person is naive. Children are born premature everyday and required to begin their lives in an incubator. Perhaps we should restrict such medical treatments from newborns -- only the string will be allowed to live?
More science: a fetus is a living organism. Only living organisms are capable of the kind of development they undertake during gestation. If they were "just a clump of cells", they would be incapable of developing into a living, breathing human being.
Consciousness: Children exhibit behaviors after birth which were affected by their environment. Children recognize their mother's voice, her heartbeat and even the mother's singing after birth. These are proven facts, and show a level of consciousness that proves children are sentient beings long before their birth.
Privacy: Women are able to make choices with their own bodies. But biology teaches us that the child is NOT part of the woman's body. It is a different body given the lack of identical DNA compared to the mother's. How can the woman claim a body growing inside her womb is "her body" given the proven science of the situation? The woman should have exercised RESPONSIBILITY for her body through responsible use of birth control or choosing to abstain from sexual intercourse. No, I'm not talking about actions she had no choice in like rape and incest. Those are exception most people agree should be treated as such -- exceptions. That also includes abortions to save the mother's life. Less than 1% of pregnancies involve threats to the mother's life or health. Again, this is a rare exception.
Political viewpoint: Why is it Pro-Aborion advocates are quick to tell anti-abortion activists "don't force your views on others." Isn't that exactly what they want the government to do to the Pro-Lifers? If taxes are used to fund Planned Parenthood, Pro-Lifers are having views they disagree with forced upon them.
Lots of other things I could add, but this is a good start. Maybe try some research on your own:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=anti-abortion+views+nonreligious&atb=v231-1&ia=web&iai=r1-2&page=1&adx=prdsdc&sexp=%7B%22v7exp%22%3A%22a%22%2C%22prodexp%22%3A%22b%22%2C%22prdsdexp%22%3A%22c%22%2C%22biaexp%22%3A%22b%22%2C%22wiadrk%22%3A%22b%22%2C%22langexp%22%3A%22b%22%2C%22liapm%22%3A%22b%22%7D
These videos are not short, but thought-provoking. Start here, and look for the 2nd thru 4th installments:
https://youtu.be/OCSZYJywQPM
-
Scientific: Life begins at conception. You don't have to base that opinion on religion. Science tells us that as soon as an egg is fertilized, it develops a DNA profile that is a combination of the parents' DNA that's unique from either parent. If allowed to develop, the embryo created will be as viable in 9 months as any child. Believing that a child must be separated from the mother to be counted as a person is naive. Children are born premature everyday and required to begin their lives in an incubator. Perhaps we should restrict such medical treatments from newborns -- only the string will be allowed to live?
Its all about will, its your choice to put the baby in an incubator, just like you have a choice to use a surrogate or a tube. Forcing someone to do something for 9 months and to have no choice is anti- freedom.
More science: a fetus is a living organism. Only living organisms are capable of the kind of development they undertake during gestation. If they were "just a clump of cells", they would be incapable of developing into a living, breathing human being.
The capability of something does not dictate the present. I am capable of being a billionaire does that mean I am one?
Consciousness: Children exhibit behaviors after birth which were affected by their environment. Children recognize their mother's voice, her heartbeat and even the mother's singing after birth. These are proven facts, and show a level of consciousness that proves children are sentient beings long before their birth.
Animals recognize voices are they human? You are grasping straws here
Privacy: Women are able to make choices with their own bodies. But biology teaches us that the child is NOT part of the woman's body. It is a different body given the lack of identical DNA compared to the mother's. How can the woman claim a body growing inside her womb is "her body" given the proven science of the situation? The woman should have exercised RESPONSIBILITY for her body through responsible use of birth control or choosing to abstain from sexual intercourse. No, I'm not talking about actions she had no choice in like rape and incest. Those are exception most people agree should be treated as such -- exceptions. That also includes abortions to save the mother's life. Less than 1% of pregnancies involve threats to the mother's life or health. Again, this is a rare exception.
A women is needed for a child to be born, if the women does not want the child to grow in her then she has the right to void the child. If you want to save the child grow it in a tube for all I care. Even if you think a mass of cells is a "person" you should also agree that one "person" doesn't have the right to force-ably make another person do something for 9 months.
Political viewpoint: Why is it Pro-Aborion advocates are quick to tell anti-abortion activists "don't force your views on others." Isn't that exactly what they want the government to do to the Pro-Lifers? If taxes are used to fund Planned Parenthood, Pro-Lifers are having views they disagree with forced upon them.
Taxes are not used???? what? I will agree with you taxes should not directly fund abortions. That way NEITHER party forces their view on the other.
Lots of other things I could add, but this is a good start. Maybe try some research on your own:
-
Taxes are not used???? what? I will agree with you taxes should not directly fund abortions. That way NEITHER party forces their view on the other.
In 2018-2019, the abortion business was also on the receiving end of $616.8 million in American taxpayer funds,
a 9.4 percent jump from the $563.8 million it received in year 2017-2018.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/06/planned-parenthood-annual-report-record-high-abortions-and-taxpayer-funding/
PP likes to say they don't "directly" fund abortions with taxes. They raise funds from donors. in other words, it's an accounting game. For every dollar they get in taxes is a dollar they can divert from administrative and other services to fund abortions.
That rationale is a distinction without a difference. Taxes still fund the ORGANIZATION, and the people who are Pro-Life don't want taxes to support the organization at all, because it enables them indirectly to do more abortions. Anyone who takes accounting learns that the bottom line is what matters, not which lines the revenue and expenses are allocated on.
-
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/06/planned-parenthood-annual-report-record-high-abortions-and-taxpayer-funding/
PP likes to say they don't "directly" fund abortions with taxes. They raise funds from donors. in other words, it's an accounting game. For every dollar they get in taxes is a dollar they can divert from administrative and other services to fund abortions.
That rationale is a distinction without a difference. Taxes still fund the ORGANIZATION, and the people who are Pro-Life don't want taxes to support the organization at all, because it enables them indirectly to do more abortions. Anyone who takes accounting learns that the bottom line is what matters, not which lines the revenue and expenses are allocated on.
So basically that means hospitals fund abortions, doctors do, clinics, anyone medical. All medical insurance funds abortions too, government and private. Cause that applies to everyone. That's just silly. Planned parenthood doesn't only do abortions you know....you make it seam like they are "abortions r us".
I guess the only way to make you happy is if the taxes had a check box to allow you tax dollars to fund pro choice. Then those who support can directly have their taxes help and those who don't have the choice not to.
-
So basically that means hospitals fund abortions, doctors do, clinics, anyone medical. All medical insurance funds abortions too, government and private. Cause that applies to everyone. That's just silly. Planned parenthood doesn't only do abortions you know....you make it seam like they are "abortions r us".
I guess the only way to make you happy is if the taxes had a check box to allow you tax dollars to fund pro choice. Then those who support can directly have their taxes help and those who don't have the choice not to.
Okay, I've been nice, but THAT was the stupidest thing you've posted tonight.
I was talking about taxes, and you erupted with a tirade on everything EXCEPT taxes!
And you need to look up the ratio of PP's abortion business vs other services. In fact, most of the non-abortion services they claim to do is CONTRACTED OUT to other facilities, because PP does not do those services themselves.
Go to bed -- and thanks for playing..... :sleeping:
If you bothered to read the link I posted, you'd see that they really are "Abortions-R-Us":
In the past year, Planned Parenthood performed 345,672 abortions, an increase of nearly 13,000 more abortions and four percent
over the 332,757 the group performed during year 2017-2018.
The number of abortions performed in 2017-2018 was 11,373 more than the abortions performed the year before that,
a trend that shows that while Planned Parenthood officials once said abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare,” today they omit t
he word “rare” in their mantra as they perform more abortions each year.
In its analysis of the data, pro-life news outlet Live Action News noted that, in the past decade, “abortions at Planned Parenthood
have risen nearly seven percent (6.67%) from 324,008 in 2008 to 345,672 in 2018.
In 2018-2019, the abortion business was also on the receiving end of $616.8 million in American taxpayer funds, a 9.4 percent
jump from the $563.8 million it received in year 2017-2018.
“Government health services reimbursements and grants” remains the largest source of income for Planned Parenthood at 37
percent – largely from the Medicaid program – followed by “private contributions and bequests” at 36 percent.
In year 2018-2019, Planned Parenthood’s total revenue was more than $1.6 billion, and its net assets for the year was nearly $2
billion.
Once again, Live Action News observed Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer income over the last decade has risen 69.8 percent,
“from $363.2 million in 2008 to $616.8 million in taxpayer dollars in 2018.”
[Planned Parenthood] has long (and falsely) claimed that abortions make up just three percent of its services, a claim that has
been debunked multiple times. Planned Parenthood’s abortion market share currently stands at 40% when compared to the most
recent data from the Guttmacher Institute for 2017. That means Planned Parenthood alone commits 40% of all the abortions in
the United States. This number may increase after the Guttmacher Institute releases new national abortion statistics.
The report also observed that Planned Parenthood provided less than 1.4 percent of the nation’s HIV tests and less than 1 percent
of pap tests. Additionally, in the previous five years, service-to-client ratios for breast exams and pap tests had declined by 37 percent.
“Severing the link between taxpayers and the abortion conglomerate that is Planned Parenthood has never been more important,
because you get more of what you pay for and less of what you tax,” said Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America in
a statement sent to Breitbart News.
And now this ...
The organization touts in its newly released annual report that it now provides “services for transgender patients” in 31 states
-
Okay, I've been nice, but THAT was the stupidest thing you've posted tonight.
I was talking about taxes, and you erupted with a tirade on everything EXCEPT taxes!
And you need to look up the ratio of PP's abortion business vs other services. In fact, most of the non-abortion services they claim to do is CONTRACTED OUT to other facilities, because PP does not do those services themselves.
Go to bed -- and thanks for playing..... :sleeping:
If you bothered to read the link I posted, you'd see that they really are "Abortions-R-Us":
And now this ...
You do know that taxes, grants etc fund most of those things right? My bad on not specifying on insurance, you personally fund that. Not through taxes but functions the same.
The fact that PP does alot of abortions doesn't discount the other things they provide...many of those might not be 100% quantitative like sex education, testing, etc.
-
That is a false statement, as I noted in my comment: There are philosophical, ethical, medical, and legal arguments against abortion that are in no way dependent upon any religious belief or doctrine.
Please explain those concepts. I have never heard them being in used before.
The fact that you aren't familiar with any arguments against abortion except for "religious" ones says a lot about your level of knowledge and interest in inquiry into the issues involved. It's not my fault you are ignorant. I'm not going to spoon feed you. The issues are complex, and require some degree of time-consuming reading of "abstract" concepts (philosophy, in particular, is like that. See, for example, Peter Singer's 450 page tome re the question of whether nonhuman animals deserve ethical consideration, and to what degree... then apply those concepts to pre-born humans. It can't be adequately summed up in a couple of sentences.).
If you want to expand your horizons (which you could have already done long ago on your own if you were truly interested in understanding the complexities of the questions involved) you can just input "philosophical/ethical/medical/legal arguments against abortion" into a search engine and each inquiry will give you enough reading material for a few hours of fun exploration.
As for me, this thread and it being hijacked re "abortion", I'm done. :stopjack:
-
You do know that taxes, grants etc fund most of those things right? My bad on not specifying on insurance, you personally fund that. Not through taxes but functions the same.
The fact that PP does alot of abortions doesn't discount the other things they provide...many of those might not be 100% quantitative like sex education, testing, etc.
I have a choice as to what, if any, private insurance I pay into.
Taxes are theft. Someone who pretends to champion liberty and freedom should understand how that works. :geekdanc:
-
You do know that taxes, grants etc fund most of those things right? My bad on not specifying on insurance, you personally fund that. Not through taxes but functions the same.
The fact that PP does alot of abortions doesn't discount the other things they provide...many of those might not be 100% quantitative like sex education, testing, etc.
Testing, sex ed, and all the other "services" you cite are already provided by other agencies and companies. No need for PP to do those things. As I said already, PP doesn't provide more than a small fraction of those "other services" themselves. They farm those out to the other agencies I'm talking about rather than provide them at PP facilities.
Please provide PROOF if you think that's not true.
-
Testing, sex ed, and all the other "services" you cite are already provided by other agencies and companies. No need for PP to do those things. As I said already, PP doesn't provide more than a small fraction of those "other services" themselves. They farm those out to the other agencies I'm talking about rather than provide them at PP facilities.
Please provide PROOF if you think that's not true.
I've said before I've used pp to do plenty of non abortion things. I'm talking from experience. Yes you can do it at other places. Just like you can go shopping at many different places is just another option and in my opinion a great one that I actually used over my pcp doctor.
What's your reply to post #36?
-
I've said before I've used pp to do plenty of non abortion things. I'm talking from experience. Yes you can do it at other places. Just like you can go shopping at many different places is just another option and in my opinion a great one that I actually used over my pcp doctor.
What's your reply to post #36?
Those "other places" are not performing abortions. They are providing services that do not involve the termination of life. That includes not taking taxes for their group to support performing abortions.
In other words, abortion is PP's niche market. All the other "related" services are not in their niche. It's like a car wash offering floor mats and other automotive accessories for sale so you can browse/buy while you wait. Nobody goes there for the center console trashcan and cup holder. They are there for the car wash. Walmart and many others offer the same accessories, but don't do car washes. We're talking about abortions -- PP's #1 service.
They perform 40% of all abortions in the US -- maybe more. arguing they provide "other services" is a misdirection, not an actual justification. If PP stopped doing abortions, they could still provide the other services. But if they did, we know they'd go out of business, don't we?
-
Those "other places" are not performing abortions. They are providing services that do not involve the termination of life. That includes not taking taxes for their group to support performing abortions.
In other words, abortion is PP's niche market. All the other "related" services are not in their niche. It's like a car wash offering floor mats and other automotive accessories for sale so you can browse/buy while you wait. Nobody goes there for the center console trashcan and cup holder. They are there for the car wash. Walmart and many others offer the same accessories, but don't do car washes. We're talking about abortions -- PP's #1 service.
They perform 40% of all abortions in the US -- maybe more. arguing they provide "other services" is a misdirection, not an actual justification. If PP stopped doing abortions, they could still provide the other services. But if they did, we know they'd go out of business, don't we?
Even if we just shoehorn them into abortion services. There are many services people who do not believe in and are receiving tax dollars this is no different. Aka churches, oil companies, war the list can go on forever.
-
Even if we just shoehorn them into abortion services. There are many services people who do not believe in and are receiving tax dollars this is no different. Aka churches, oil companies, war the list can go on forever.
Churches don't get taxes. The get to reduce the money they owe the IRS for donations, mostly because the government recognizes that churches do a large number of things that benefit society and the communities they serve.
Homeless shelters
Soup Kitchens
Public service projects
Hospital visits and volunteering
Food, clothing and other drives to help victims of natural disasters
Lots of their service overlap the things government tries to do. I understand if you didn't know any of this. You'd have to go to church to find out about all the things the accomplish in the name of "pushing their opinions on others." :geekdanc:
War? The government has few specific duties mandated in that Constitution you like to wave around. One is the duty to provide for the common defense, raise Armies and establish a standing Navy. War is the government's monopoly. Bill Gates or Exxon can't declare war on a foreign power.
Technically, we are not at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. That was a sanctioned UN effort to combat terrorism. We (the US) did not issue a declaration of war to any of these nations' leaders. So "War" is not a valid description.