Quote:
Do you think 60% of the people should be able to agree that 5% should pay all the taxes?
Insofar as they have all the wealth, sure.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Delaware politics
Delaware politicsFollow
Insofar as they have all the wealth, sure.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
gbaji wrote:
Except say in California, where it was legal. Look. If you couldn't afford to travel a couple hundred miles to get an abortion, how were you going to be able to afford it anyway? See. The problem is that your argument assumes that we should also fund abortions for people who can't afford them, which is a whole additional can of worms beyond just the issue of legalization.
Sorry, just jumping in the middle here. Ok, Travel costs might be equal to the cost of an abortion, so many people might be able to afford one, but not be able to get to a clinic/hospital.
Secondly, you SERIOUSLY want someone, or a couple, who can't afford to pay for an abortion, or a trip inter-state, to be responsible for raising a child? On what?
Aripyanfar wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Except say in California, where it was legal. Look. If you couldn't afford to travel a couple hundred miles to get an abortion, how were you going to be able to afford it anyway? See. The problem is that your argument assumes that we should also fund abortions for people who can't afford them, which is a whole additional can of worms beyond just the issue of legalization.
Sorry, just jumping in the middle here. Ok, Travel costs might be equal to the cost of an abortion, so many people might be able to afford one, but not be able to get to a clinic/hospital.
Secondly, you SERIOUSLY want someone, or a couple, who can't afford to pay for an abortion, or a trip inter-state, to be responsible for raising a child? On what?
If you can't afford an abortion, you shouldn't be having sex!
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Yeah, that's what he said.
Aripyanfar wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Except say in California, where it was legal. Look. If you couldn't afford to travel a couple hundred miles to get an abortion, how were you going to be able to afford it anyway? See. The problem is that your argument assumes that we should also fund abortions for people who can't afford them, which is a whole additional can of worms beyond just the issue of legalization.
Sorry, just jumping in the middle here. Ok, Travel costs might be equal to the cost of an abortion, so many people might be able to afford one, but not be able to get to a clinic/hospital.
Secondly, you SERIOUSLY want someone, or a couple, who can't afford to pay for an abortion, or a trip inter-state, to be responsible for raising a child? On what?
Quadkit wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Except say in California, where it was legal. Look. If you couldn't afford to travel a couple hundred miles to get an abortion, how were you going to be able to afford it anyway? See. The problem is that your argument assumes that we should also fund abortions for people who can't afford them, which is a whole additional can of worms beyond just the issue of legalization.
Sorry, just jumping in the middle here. Ok, Travel costs might be equal to the cost of an abortion, so many people might be able to afford one, but not be able to get to a clinic/hospital.
Secondly, you SERIOUSLY want someone, or a couple, who can't afford to pay for an abortion, or a trip inter-state, to be responsible for raising a child? On what?
I have no problem with them mentioning that it's unreliable but is as close as you're going to get without going in for surgery.
Debalic wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Except say in California, where it was legal. Look. If you couldn't afford to travel a couple hundred miles to get an abortion, how were you going to be able to afford it anyway? See. The problem is that your argument assumes that we should also fund abortions for people who can't afford them, which is a whole additional can of worms beyond just the issue of legalization.
Sorry, just jumping in the middle here. Ok, Travel costs might be equal to the cost of an abortion, so many people might be able to afford one, but not be able to get to a clinic/hospital.
Secondly, you SERIOUSLY want someone, or a couple, who can't afford to pay for an abortion, or a trip inter-state, to be responsible for raising a child? On what?
If you can't afford an abortion, you shouldn't be having sex!
I love that line. People seem to forget that married women have abortions sometimes, too. That a married couple could easily be living below the poverty line and can't afford a child, but still want to have sex.
Disclaimer: This post isn't directly addressed to Debalic, because I think he was joking.
Married people wanting abortions?? That's just silly! Especially since the government has convinced us all to get married and have loads of babies in order to get all those lovely benefits! No married people in the right mind would want to abort!
MDenham wrote:
Quadkit wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Except say in California, where it was legal. Look. If you couldn't afford to travel a couple hundred miles to get an abortion, how were you going to be able to afford it anyway? See. The problem is that your argument assumes that we should also fund abortions for people who can't afford them, which is a whole additional can of worms beyond just the issue of legalization.
Sorry, just jumping in the middle here. Ok, Travel costs might be equal to the cost of an abortion, so many people might be able to afford one, but not be able to get to a clinic/hospital.
Secondly, you SERIOUSLY want someone, or a couple, who can't afford to pay for an abortion, or a trip inter-state, to be responsible for raising a child? On what?
I have no problem with them mentioning that it's unreliable but is as close as you're going to get without going in for surgery.
I'm not sure why you'd be arguing this with Gbaji. Gbaji's argument is him taking socially conservative values born from religious doctrine ("abortions are bad") and attempting to rationalize them via poorly shoehorned fiscal logic ("abortions... ummm... might cost taxpayers money!") in order to defend the GOP. Pointing out the errors in his arguments won't matter because they don't address the heart of the matter, that Gbaji is just defending religious beliefs.
It's like arguing with someone about how their husband can potentially afford the bus fare to get a job when the real fact is that said husband is an alcoholic slouch. All the greatest arguments in the world for getting a ride to work won't change the fact that they're just rationalizing away why their husband is a drunken bum. Which is where you get such wonderful arguments as "Conservatives don't want to ban abortions! They just, you know, want the states to decide! What? McCain said he wanted to use the federal government to help special interest groups ban abortion at the state level? Nah, he didn't really mean that really. You just don't know conservatives like I do..."
Edited, Sep 26th 2010 3:52pm by Jophiel
It's like arguing with someone about how their husband can potentially afford the bus fare to get a job when the real fact is that said husband is an alcoholic slouch. All the greatest arguments in the world for getting a ride to work won't change the fact that they're just rationalizing away why their husband is a drunken bum. Which is where you get such wonderful arguments as "Conservatives don't want to ban abortions! They just, you know, want the states to decide! What? McCain said he wanted to use the federal government to help special interest groups ban abortion at the state level? Nah, he didn't really mean that really. You just don't know conservatives like I do..."
Edited, Sep 26th 2010 3:52pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quadkit wrote:
MDenham wrote:
Quadkit wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Except say in California, where it was legal. Look. If you couldn't afford to travel a couple hundred miles to get an abortion, how were you going to be able to afford it anyway? See. The problem is that your argument assumes that we should also fund abortions for people who can't afford them, which is a whole additional can of worms beyond just the issue of legalization.
Sorry, just jumping in the middle here. Ok, Travel costs might be equal to the cost of an abortion, so many people might be able to afford one, but not be able to get to a clinic/hospital.
Secondly, you SERIOUSLY want someone, or a couple, who can't afford to pay for an abortion, or a trip inter-state, to be responsible for raising a child? On what?
I have no problem with them mentioning that it's unreliable but is as close as you're going to get without going in for surgery.
Recent Visitors: 331
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (331)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Delaware politics
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC