Woman arguing about the right to kill a defenseless human being. Why?
I'm not questioning the size of the expenditures on abortions.
I'm saying that the state funds an organization that performs abortions. Nothing I said was incorrect. You just object to the obvious inference that statement makes because the laws allow them to play with bookkeeping numbers and say "tada, taxpayer funds didn't pay for any abortions". It's almost like they pretend there's no such thing as a subsidy.
Last edited by Laize; 2013-07-13 at 09:40 AM.
Up next: Illegal abortions skyrocket and public health takes a (further) nosedive in the wake of this bill meant to "protect the health" of women.
The GOP and its supporters: advocating utter incompetence in all things. Because freedom.
So? State funds an organization that does abortions, who cares. But those FUNDS CANNOT BE USED FOR ABORTIONS, meaning you cannot walk in and ask for one on the tax payers dime, so in turn Planned Parenthood and the state does not pay for abortions. Its like you are purposefully ignoring everything I said. Simply because you don't like abortions.
- - - Updated - - -
Because technically it isn't a human being. Its a ball of cells with no viability. Get your religion out of politics.
- - - Updated - - -
Totally relevant.
Then how are you defining "working" laize?
You're in a thread about Texas passing punitive restrictions on women's rights on a board that has also been discussing a kid in jail over a facebook post in Texas. Don't pretend its some bastion of liberty. Its a bastion of social conservatism.They don't give a shit about any liberties? It must have been a different Texas that is leading the nation in electronic privacy legislation, then.