That's all I'm saying. We're paying for it in the end. I'd rather pay for the "sterilization" process, but we can either help fund abortion, or pay to raise millions of someone elses' kids.
I understand what he's saying, and I don't disagree with the general message. But he's putting forth the image that they are using the money the government gives them to pay for the abortions, which isn't the case.
I understand what he's saying, and I don't disagree with the general message. But he's putting forth the image that they are using the money the government gives them to pay for the abortions, which isn't the case.
Vertnut, are you advocating eugenics?
Not at all. That's quite a leap. I'm not talking "forced sterilization" here, but how about some council (which we will also pay for) to educate these women and letting them have an option?
I understand what he's saying, and I don't disagree with the general message. But he's putting forth the image that they are using the money the government gives them to pay for the abortions, which isn't the case.
Vertnut, are you advocating eugenics?
The results are what matters, not how you get to them. Ease back on the semantics.
Not at all. That's quite a leap. I'm not talking "forced sterilization" here, but how about some council (which we will also pay for) to educate these women and letting them have an option?
What do you think PP does with your taxpayer dollars?
He's lost his original argument, so he's reaching. It's OK.
I haven't lost my original argument. You said you as a taxpayer were paying for all the abortions, which is false. I was asking if you were advocating eugenics, because that's what it seems like to me.
What do you think PP does with your taxpayer dollars?
I haven't lost my original argument. You said you as a taxpayer were paying for all the abortions, which is false. I was asking if you were advocating eugenics, because that's what it seems like to me.
They all counsel on sterilization, but not all PP clinics perform sterilizations, and they will discriminate based on age and the number of children a woman has.
You're not listening. By giving them money for one "fund" it allows them to use that money that being "replaced" however they wish. If I give you money for rent, you can go spend the money you had set aside for rent on whatever you choose.
It's called opportunity costs. By paying for other things, it frees up PP to use funds to pay for abortion. It's like the government saying your Social Security is a trust fund. Not really. You paid in but it was shuffled around. It's separate on paper but in reality
I understand what he's saying, and I don't disagree with the general message. But he's putting forth the image that they are using the money the government gives them to pay for the abortions, which isn't the case.
Vertnut, are you advocating eugenics?
You mean like the founder of PP? She was all about eugenics.
Comment