Oklahoma lawmaker thinks rape can ‘bring beauty from ashes’

[Seani]

Hyde amendment. Google it and stop littering this thread with your ignorance.

Hyde Amendment and 3% of PP visits are abortion related? I am well aware of the Hyde Amendment, because we have already debated this issue before on this forum.

- - - Updated - - -

You know what else can bring beauty from ashes? My taser to his old stupid face.

Why, because he disagrees with you?

- - - Updated - - -

Not sure how referring to some dead woman as the only argument you have is logical but sure, what ever makes you happy.

Hitler is dead as well, and there is no end to the comparisons of Hitler to Trump and anyone else the left doesn't agree with.

[GennGreymane]

Hitler is dead as well, and there is no end to the comparisons of Hitler to Trump and anyone else the left doesn't agree with.

I thought you only wanted to discuss the topic at hand? Or is analogy only okay when you do it?

[Seani]

I thought you only wanted to discuss the topic at hand? Or is analogy only okay when you do it?

My analogies are good though. Your analogies just leave people scratching their heads in disbelief.

[GennGreymane]

My analogies are good though. Your analogies just leave people scratching their heads in disbelief.

Ah, so once again.... you really have nothing to add.

[Seani]

Ah, so once again.... you really have nothing to add.

I think it takes someone with unusual patience to argue with you.

[WernerCD]

But without religion, they wouldn't have any valid reason to force their morals and ideals on others!

Aethiests, Democrats and the Left have no problem forcing their opinions and "morals" on others without religion...

[volescue]

This whole notion of divine intervention makes me sick. If god would want good to come out of a rape or incest would he allow an abortion to happen anyway? I suppose the next argument then is that god isn't allowing abortions to happen so "good" can come out of rapes and incest by touching all those who approve this bill to be his tools.

So nice to have people with a direct line to god running our governmen, founded by men who agreed governing and religion shouldn't go hand in hand.

[WernerCD]

You're missing the point - the republicans want to preserve the traditional family unit at any cost, since it is the pillar of a healthy economy. One way to do this is to ensure that everyone that can be pregnant is pregnant, regardless of how it happens. This is why they hate abortions; babies stimulate capitalism like nothing else.

http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/.../16/id/638995/

A man works significantly harder when he does so to support someone besides himself, and the Right loves that.

Talk about taking a point 2 steps further than reality...

[GennGreymane]

I think it takes someone with unusual patience to argue with you.

Well, if you're going to ignore arguments despite evidence, make rules that only apply to me and not to you, claim I am being uncivil with you in some way, and overall not actually make an argument...... I'd say you lost patience long ago.

[telygroar]

If we follow his example, nobody should be going to jail if killing a person or whatever crime ; it was "his" will !

[Seani]

His analogy was apt though, and clearly demonstrates that some dubious associations you could make with the founding of some body or another do not necessarily have anything to do with their merits in the present. It is not enough to simply point out that Sanger was guilty of some beliefs that would offend modern sensibilities, especially if you want to overlook her genuine desire to help the people she was supposedly trying to eliminate, and your supposedly good analogy is nothing more than the precanned tripe every "pro-life" activist under the sun has trotted out countless times before. It's old and it's poor reasoning and repeating it doesn't change that.

Sanger had a genuine desire to 'help' minorities out of existence in the United States and Europe. It isn't that people have analyzed Margaret Sanger and weighed the pros and cons of her contribution to feminism and reproductive rights, most people that debate this topic haven't even heard of Margaret Sanger. It is important that you understand the Eugenicist ideology and how it applies to modern concepts of health and sexuality. Me being pro-life assumes that I want to prevent people from having abortions, that is clearly not the case. Again, I want to prevent a mandate that supports public funding being allocated to abortion. A person is not 'entitled' to an abortion. An entitlement means that you are taking something from someone else to provide that thing.

[Halyon]

We pay for the facility that provides for the abortion. 3% of all visits are abortion related, which means out of 100 visits 3 of those will be consultation or surgery related to the abortion of a child. I had originally thought you were referring to the funding or allocation of PP resources, but this number actually doesn't seem small at all.

Mentioning Viagra is funny to me, because it usually (not in all cased) used to treat men with ED, which is never something that you would consider to be provided to men for free.

No, not 3% of visits, 3% of services provided. Not the same thing.

[Seani]

No, not 3% of visits, 3% of services provided. Not the same thing.

There are still some resources from public funding being allocated to abortion regardless. Not to mention the services that we pay for that go into contraception (34%). Only 9% of their services are Cancer Screening and prevention, which seems like the most important health concern to me in regards to Woman's Health.

- - - Updated - - -

Sanger comes up each and every time someone wants to bitch about how awful Planned Parenthood is. It's kind of hard for anyone to not know who she is.

Who gives a shit about what people are entitled to? This isn't about entitlement at all. It's about simple pragmatism: If the taxpayers are going to foot the bill, then choose the option that burdens the taxpayers less, your personal morals be damned.

It is about entitlements, being pragmatic to you is affording women free services that you happen to agree with. What you do with your body is your business until you ask someone else to financially support it. My personal morals are me choosing to vote with my wallet.

[Halyon]

There are still some resources from public funding being allocated to abortion regardless. Not to mention the services that we pay for that go into contraception (34%).

And this is a problem how? The money is going to maintain the service provider, not the abortions, the patient pays for those. And don't even dare to start going into why contraceptives shouldn't be funded like viagra is. Do you WANT more abortions, unwanted pregnancies, and kids stuck in the orphan/foster system?

[Seani]

Sanger comes up each and every time someone wants to bitch about how awful Planned Parenthood is. It's kind of hard for anyone to not know who she is.

Who gives a shit about what people are entitled to? This isn't about entitlement at all. It's about simple pragmatism: If the taxpayers are going to foot the bill, then choose the option that burdens the taxpayers less, your personal morals be damned.

Also, mentioning Sanger in this debate isn't a distraction. It is very relevant to the subject at hand. She founded Planned Parenthood, and had a purpose in mind for Planned Parenthood that she wrote about extensively. Was very influential to Eugenicist movement, very likely influenced Hitler.

[The One Percent]

And there's always some retard coming in who decides one idiot speaks for an entire MASSIVE demographic.

[Seani]

And this is a problem how? The money is going to maintain the service provider, not the abortions, the patient pays for those. And don't even dare to start going into why contraceptives shouldn't be funded like viagra is. Do you WANT more abortions, unwanted pregnancies, and kids stuck in the orphan/foster system?

I didn't know beforehand that Viagra was publicly funded. I have never indulged in free Viagra. I think the whole idea is silly to be honest. Why don't I dare dare go into why contraceptives shouldn't be publically funded? it seems like 34% of services being contraceptive related seems unusually high. I know that Diaphragms are expensive. Why can't we allocate more resources into cancer screening and prevention?

[GennGreymane]

And there's always some retard coming in who decides one idiot speaks for an entire MASSIVE demographic.

Technically..... as a representative.......

[The One Percent]

Technically..... as a representative.......

more pointing at some moron who seems to think he speaks for all men.

[Halyon]

Also, mentioning Sanger in this debate isn't a distraction. It is very relevant to the subject at hand. She founded Planned Parenthood, and had a purpose in mind for Planned Parenthood that she wrote about extensively. Was very influential to Eugenicist movement, very likely influenced Hitler.

Lol. Sanger is long dead, she has no influence on how PP works today. It's moot. You're beating on a literal dead horse.

I didn't know beforehand that Viagra was publicly funded. I have never indulged in free Viagra. I think the whole idea is silly to be honest. Why don't I dare dare go into why contraceptives shouldn't be publically funded? it seems like 34% of services being contraceptive related seems unusually high. I know that Diaphragms are expensive. Why can't we allocate more resources into cancer screening and prevention?

To be fair, the viagra thing is insurance-related, not medical services...well, not directly. Birth control, is as far as I know, not covered on insurance. Why not? It'd help a great deal. I mean, unless you equate implantation prevention to baby seal clubbing...which I know some pro-lifers do... More readily available, and free for those who can't afford it, would cut down abortions. Same with proper education on how to use preventative measures. Fat chance of that with that Devos she-devil in charge of America's education now though...

Assuming that you're American. Since the OP is America related.