I don't think that is what dermdoc believes.
I agree that he doesn't personally believe this, but it is the practical result.kurt vonnegut said:
I don't think that is what dermdoc believes.
Macarthur said:RebelE Infantry said:
What is the woman pregnant with, exactly?
a fetus.
So in order to disproportionally not harm women of color, we need to make sure women of color are able to kill their own children easier? Does that not sound like just the thing a white supremacist would want to do?Macarthur said:Quad Dog said:Dermdoc supports abortion for the rich. Everyone else can deal with it.Quote:
If you want an abortion, go to a state that allows it.
No doubt there is an element to this. I read that a very high % of women that get abortions beyond the first trimester gave 'raising of funds' as one of the main reasons. Also, when you factor in that people of color get abortions at a far higher rate than whites, these types of laws (SHOCKER) disproportinally harm women of color.
Joe Boudain said:So in order to disproportionally not harm women of color, we need to make sure women of color are able to kill their own children easier? Does that not sound like just the thing a white supremacist would want to do?Macarthur said:Quad Dog said:Dermdoc supports abortion for the rich. Everyone else can deal with it.Quote:
If you want an abortion, go to a state that allows it.
No doubt there is an element to this. I read that a very high % of women that get abortions beyond the first trimester gave 'raising of funds' as one of the main reasons. Also, when you factor in that people of color get abortions at a far higher rate than whites, these types of laws (SHOCKER) disproportinally harm women of color.
Do you think this is some sort of gotcha? I don't give a rat's ass what the origin of the word is.RebelE Infantry said:Macarthur said:RebelE Infantry said:
What is the woman pregnant with, exactly?
a fetus.
Which is Latin for "offspring." Very smart.
you don't think white supremacists wish that black women would abort all of their children?Macarthur said:Joe Boudain said:So in order to disproportionally not harm women of color, we need to make sure women of color are able to kill their own children easier? Does that not sound like just the thing a white supremacist would want to do?Macarthur said:Quad Dog said:Dermdoc supports abortion for the rich. Everyone else can deal with it.Quote:
If you want an abortion, go to a state that allows it.
No doubt there is an element to this. I read that a very high % of women that get abortions beyond the first trimester gave 'raising of funds' as one of the main reasons. Also, when you factor in that people of color get abortions at a far higher rate than whites, these types of laws (SHOCKER) disproportinally harm women of color.
lol. No, the fact that it disproportionally harms women of color is an interesting side note within the context of what we've seen in the world the last several months.
The law itself (as you obvously know) has nothing to do with race specifically.
I'm sure there are some of those idiots that would like that.Joe Boudain said:you don't think white supremacists wish that black women would abort all of their children?Macarthur said:Joe Boudain said:So in order to disproportionally not harm women of color, we need to make sure women of color are able to kill their own children easier? Does that not sound like just the thing a white supremacist would want to do?Macarthur said:Quad Dog said:Dermdoc supports abortion for the rich. Everyone else can deal with it.Quote:
If you want an abortion, go to a state that allows it.
No doubt there is an element to this. I read that a very high % of women that get abortions beyond the first trimester gave 'raising of funds' as one of the main reasons. Also, when you factor in that people of color get abortions at a far higher rate than whites, these types of laws (SHOCKER) disproportinally harm women of color.
lol. No, the fact that it disproportionally harms women of color is an interesting side note within the context of what we've seen in the world the last several months.
The law itself (as you obvously know) has nothing to do with race specifically.
Quad Dog said:Dermdoc supports abortion for the rich. Everyone else can deal with it.Quote:
If you want an abortion, go to a state that allows it.
Macarthur said:Do you think this is some sort of gotcha? I don't give a rat's ass what the origin of the word is.RebelE Infantry said:Macarthur said:RebelE Infantry said:
What is the woman pregnant with, exactly?
a fetus.
Which is Latin for "offspring." Very smart.
Quad Dog said:
I don't either, that post was a little tongue in cheek. I could have indicated that better. It is what he said though.
Dermdoc: "If you want an abortion, go to a state that allows it."dermdoc said:Quad Dog said:
I don't either, that post was a little tongue in cheek. I could have indicated that better. It is what he said though.
Where did I say that? That is what you projected on what I was. That i I s a huge jump for any unbiased person.
And for folks who are so quick to decry Forum 16 y'all are not too shabby yourselves.
This does not feel like r&p to me so I am checking out a while.
God bless
This is where you draw the line? Someone pointing out the consequences of your statements?dermdoc said:Quad Dog said:
I don't either, that post was a little tongue in cheek. I could have indicated that better. It is what he said though.
Where did I say that? That is what you projected on what I was. That i I s a huge jump for any unbiased person.
And for folks who are so quick to decry Forum 16 y'all are not too shabby yourselves.
This does not feel like r&p to me so I am checking out a while.
God bless
I am not okay with abortion anywhere. I am okay with states deciding what their voters want them to do. And I never used the term rich or poor. That was your assumption what I thought. This is not a rich or poor issue to me.Quad Dog said:Dermdoc: "If you want an abortion, go to a state that allows it."dermdoc said:Quad Dog said:
I don't either, that post was a little tongue in cheek. I could have indicated that better. It is what he said though.
Where did I say that? That is what you projected on what I was. That i I s a huge jump for any unbiased person.
And for folks who are so quick to decry Forum 16 y'all are not too shabby yourselves.
This does not feel like r&p to me so I am checking out a while.
God bless
Therefore you are OK with abortion in other states.
Who can afford to go to other states for medical procedures? The middle class to rich.
Who can't afford to go to other states for medical procedures, and therefore has to stay and deal? The poor.
It seems like a pretty straight line to me from one thing to the other.
I know you don't think this is true, but it is a consequence of what you said, and the policy you support.
Quad Dog said:Dermdoc: "If you want an abortion, go to a state that allows it."dermdoc said:Quad Dog said:
I don't either, that post was a little tongue in cheek. I could have indicated that better. It is what he said though.
Where did I say that? That is what you projected on what I was. That i I s a huge jump for any unbiased person.
And for folks who are so quick to decry Forum 16 y'all are not too shabby yourselves.
This does not feel like r&p to me so I am checking out a while.
God bless
Therefore you are OK with abortion in other states.
Who can afford to go to other states for medical procedures? The middle class to rich.
Who can't afford to go to other states for medical procedures, and therefore has to stay and deal? The poor.
It seems like a pretty straight line to me from one thing to the other.
I know you don't think this is true, but it is a consequence of what you said, and the policy you support.
dermdoc said:I am not okay with abortion anywhere. I am okay with states deciding what their voters want them to do. And I never used the term rich or poor. That was your assumption what I thought. This is not a rich or poor issue to me.Quad Dog said:Dermdoc: "If you want an abortion, go to a state that allows it."dermdoc said:Quad Dog said:
I don't either, that post was a little tongue in cheek. I could have indicated that better. It is what he said though.
Where did I say that? That is what you projected on what I was. That i I s a huge jump for any unbiased person.
And for folks who are so quick to decry Forum 16 y'all are not too shabby yourselves.
This does not feel like r&p to me so I am checking out a while.
God bless
Therefore you are OK with abortion in other states.
Who can afford to go to other states for medical procedures? The middle class to rich.
Who can't afford to go to other states for medical procedures, and therefore has to stay and deal? The poor.
It seems like a pretty straight line to me from one thing to the other.
I know you don't think this is true, but it is a consequence of what you said, and the policy you support.
And I did not realize I was supposed to be a policeman on this forum of all inappropriate posts. You know my posting history on this forum. Do you really believe I think like you stated I did?
This issue sure seems to bring out the worst in all of us.
Now I am done.
And sorry for getting a little peeved. I will try to do better,
I need some time out and grandkid play time.
Joe Boudain said:
Just seem odd that people trying to lift up people of color want the same exact thing as those trying to eradicate them.
Joe Boudain said:
"blessed are the poor, for they too shall be able to kill their unborn children"
Dilettante said:
First, I don't think it's right to judge the validity of a thought process based on how much you like the conclusions. We do it anyway, of course, but "this is how you end up with eugenics" is not the type of claim that has the potential to convince me I've said something wrong.
Second, I don't think what I wrote has very much to do with eugenics. I just don't see the connection. You're right that subjectivity has scary potentials. But that's the world we live in, as far as I can tell.
Second point first blood part 2, I'm not against everything covered by the term eugenics. I think the ban on incest is a eugenic policy, and I support it. I'm also a big fan of trying to correct genetic diseases in individuals, and of embryo screening for IVF. I'm not a fan of some other things which fall under the eugenics umbrella.
Sapper Redux said:dermdoc said:I am not okay with abortion anywhere. I am okay with states deciding what their voters want them to do. And I never used the term rich or poor. That was your assumption what I thought. This is not a rich or poor issue to me.Quad Dog said:Dermdoc: "If you want an abortion, go to a state that allows it."dermdoc said:Quad Dog said:
I don't either, that post was a little tongue in cheek. I could have indicated that better. It is what he said though.
Where did I say that? That is what you projected on what I was. That i I s a huge jump for any unbiased person.
And for folks who are so quick to decry Forum 16 y'all are not too shabby yourselves.
This does not feel like r&p to me so I am checking out a while.
God bless
Therefore you are OK with abortion in other states.
Who can afford to go to other states for medical procedures? The middle class to rich.
Who can't afford to go to other states for medical procedures, and therefore has to stay and deal? The poor.
It seems like a pretty straight line to me from one thing to the other.
I know you don't think this is true, but it is a consequence of what you said, and the policy you support.
And I did not realize I was supposed to be a policeman on this forum of all inappropriate posts. You know my posting history on this forum. Do you really believe I think like you stated I did?
This issue sure seems to bring out the worst in all of us.
Now I am done.
And sorry for getting a little peeved. I will try to do better,
I need some time out and grandkid play time.
This is an issue where poorer women will suffer more than those with money. There's no two ways about that. If conservatives were even half as interested in supporting poor women who have to bear these children as they are in forcing them to give birth, I might not look at the entire pro-life movement so cynically.
AGC said:Sapper Redux said:dermdoc said:I am not okay with abortion anywhere. I am okay with states deciding what their voters want them to do. And I never used the term rich or poor. That was your assumption what I thought. This is not a rich or poor issue to me.Quad Dog said:Dermdoc: "If you want an abortion, go to a state that allows it."dermdoc said:Quad Dog said:
I don't either, that post was a little tongue in cheek. I could have indicated that better. It is what he said though.
Where did I say that? That is what you projected on what I was. That i I s a huge jump for any unbiased person.
And for folks who are so quick to decry Forum 16 y'all are not too shabby yourselves.
This does not feel like r&p to me so I am checking out a while.
God bless
Therefore you are OK with abortion in other states.
Who can afford to go to other states for medical procedures? The middle class to rich.
Who can't afford to go to other states for medical procedures, and therefore has to stay and deal? The poor.
It seems like a pretty straight line to me from one thing to the other.
I know you don't think this is true, but it is a consequence of what you said, and the policy you support.
And I did not realize I was supposed to be a policeman on this forum of all inappropriate posts. You know my posting history on this forum. Do you really believe I think like you stated I did?
This issue sure seems to bring out the worst in all of us.
Now I am done.
And sorry for getting a little peeved. I will try to do better,
I need some time out and grandkid play time.
This is an issue where poorer women will suffer more than those with money. There's no two ways about that. If conservatives were even half as interested in supporting poor women who have to bear these children as they are in forcing them to give birth, I might not look at the entire pro-life movement so cynically.
Poor women already suffer. Traffickers and abusers get to keep abusing because the abortion covers their tracks
File5 said:
I don't get it, do you only approve of government-implemented assistance? This is an extremely disingenuous statement that always gets trotted out. Christians do and have since the beginning helped the poor and suffering. Churches, Non-profits, etc. do Gods work every day. Between that and the base standard of living in America today, it's just an awful argument.
But we're not working with the same base assumptions here. The real question is if its murder or not. I think it is, so in my eyes your argument is that the suffering poor should be able to murder an unborn child for a better life for themselves. You ostensibly don't think it's murder, so the argument makes sense to you.
We're all talking past each other.
Sapper Redux said:AGC said:Sapper Redux said:dermdoc said:I am not okay with abortion anywhere. I am okay with states deciding what their voters want them to do. And I never used the term rich or poor. That was your assumption what I thought. This is not a rich or poor issue to me.Quad Dog said:Dermdoc: "If you want an abortion, go to a state that allows it."dermdoc said:Quad Dog said:
I don't either, that post was a little tongue in cheek. I could have indicated that better. It is what he said though.
Where did I say that? That is what you projected on what I was. That i I s a huge jump for any unbiased person.
And for folks who are so quick to decry Forum 16 y'all are not too shabby yourselves.
This does not feel like r&p to me so I am checking out a while.
God bless
Therefore you are OK with abortion in other states.
Who can afford to go to other states for medical procedures? The middle class to rich.
Who can't afford to go to other states for medical procedures, and therefore has to stay and deal? The poor.
It seems like a pretty straight line to me from one thing to the other.
I know you don't think this is true, but it is a consequence of what you said, and the policy you support.
And I did not realize I was supposed to be a policeman on this forum of all inappropriate posts. You know my posting history on this forum. Do you really believe I think like you stated I did?
This issue sure seems to bring out the worst in all of us.
Now I am done.
And sorry for getting a little peeved. I will try to do better,
I need some time out and grandkid play time.
This is an issue where poorer women will suffer more than those with money. There's no two ways about that. If conservatives were even half as interested in supporting poor women who have to bear these children as they are in forcing them to give birth, I might not look at the entire pro-life movement so cynically.
Poor women already suffer. Traffickers and abusers get to keep abusing because the abortion covers their tracks
And they won't be able to traffic and abuse because abortion is illegal? You seriously think that's what will break the cycle? No the women will be more at risk and prone to more suffering from lack of medical care and back-alley abortions.
AGC said:Sapper Redux said:AGC said:Sapper Redux said:dermdoc said:I am not okay with abortion anywhere. I am okay with states deciding what their voters want them to do. And I never used the term rich or poor. That was your assumption what I thought. This is not a rich or poor issue to me.Quad Dog said:Dermdoc: "If you want an abortion, go to a state that allows it."dermdoc said:Quad Dog said:
I don't either, that post was a little tongue in cheek. I could have indicated that better. It is what he said though.
Where did I say that? That is what you projected on what I was. That i I s a huge jump for any unbiased person.
And for folks who are so quick to decry Forum 16 y'all are not too shabby yourselves.
This does not feel like r&p to me so I am checking out a while.
God bless
Therefore you are OK with abortion in other states.
Who can afford to go to other states for medical procedures? The middle class to rich.
Who can't afford to go to other states for medical procedures, and therefore has to stay and deal? The poor.
It seems like a pretty straight line to me from one thing to the other.
I know you don't think this is true, but it is a consequence of what you said, and the policy you support.
And I did not realize I was supposed to be a policeman on this forum of all inappropriate posts. You know my posting history on this forum. Do you really believe I think like you stated I did?
This issue sure seems to bring out the worst in all of us.
Now I am done.
And sorry for getting a little peeved. I will try to do better,
I need some time out and grandkid play time.
This is an issue where poorer women will suffer more than those with money. There's no two ways about that. If conservatives were even half as interested in supporting poor women who have to bear these children as they are in forcing them to give birth, I might not look at the entire pro-life movement so cynically.
Poor women already suffer. Traffickers and abusers get to keep abusing because the abortion covers their tracks
And they won't be able to traffic and abuse because abortion is illegal? You seriously think that's what will break the cycle? No the women will be more at risk and prone to more suffering from lack of medical care and back-alley abortions.
This is backwards. Just because it will occur doesn't mean the government should make it easy to cover up.
File5 said:
So there's the chasm we must cross. When is it murder?, Don't know how to convince you of my view, and you definitely can't convince me of yours.
As this is the R & P forum, I believe God looks on abortion as an abomination. Of course I don't expect that to have an effect on you, and the argument goes to intent - if you don't think it's murder, how can God hold you accountable? I suppose I'm playing it safe here, Pascals Theorem applied to babies.
As for your charity comments, don't know what to tell you but that more government is not the answer to all the world's ills. Your comments undermine all the work that Christians do every day with the tap of a few keys. Maybe if government didn't try to solve everything with our dollars, we could us those dollars to do more things in our own communities.
I disagree with your statement about inverse proportion, but it's kind of interesting - I think needs go up proportionally to government involvement via the entitlement state - ergo, the more government involvement, the greater the charity required to address the issues caused BY the government.
why not?Sapper Redux said:
I don't think a fetus has personhood.
Dad-O-Lot said:why not?Sapper Redux said:
I don't think a fetus has personhood.
honest question.
Sapper Redux said:AGC said:Sapper Redux said:AGC said:Sapper Redux said:dermdoc said:I am not okay with abortion anywhere. I am okay with states deciding what their voters want them to do. And I never used the term rich or poor. That was your assumption what I thought. This is not a rich or poor issue to me.Quad Dog said:Dermdoc: "If you want an abortion, go to a state that allows it."dermdoc said:Quad Dog said:
I don't either, that post was a little tongue in cheek. I could have indicated that better. It is what he said though.
Where did I say that? That is what you projected on what I was. That i I s a huge jump for any unbiased person.
And for folks who are so quick to decry Forum 16 y'all are not too shabby yourselves.
This does not feel like r&p to me so I am checking out a while.
God bless
Therefore you are OK with abortion in other states.
Who can afford to go to other states for medical procedures? The middle class to rich.
Who can't afford to go to other states for medical procedures, and therefore has to stay and deal? The poor.
It seems like a pretty straight line to me from one thing to the other.
I know you don't think this is true, but it is a consequence of what you said, and the policy you support.
And I did not realize I was supposed to be a policeman on this forum of all inappropriate posts. You know my posting history on this forum. Do you really believe I think like you stated I did?
This issue sure seems to bring out the worst in all of us.
Now I am done.
And sorry for getting a little peeved. I will try to do better,
I need some time out and grandkid play time.
This is an issue where poorer women will suffer more than those with money. There's no two ways about that. If conservatives were even half as interested in supporting poor women who have to bear these children as they are in forcing them to give birth, I might not look at the entire pro-life movement so cynically.
Poor women already suffer. Traffickers and abusers get to keep abusing because the abortion covers their tracks
And they won't be able to traffic and abuse because abortion is illegal? You seriously think that's what will break the cycle? No the women will be more at risk and prone to more suffering from lack of medical care and back-alley abortions.
This is backwards. Just because it will occur doesn't mean the government should make it easy to cover up.
Legal abortion doesn't make it easier to cover up. That's a weird argument. Are you going to argue that legal guns makes it easier to cover up as well?