Planned Parenthood Selling Dead Babies for Parts

[Steeltime]

How about we start with none of my tax dollars going to pay for it. Could you imagine the uproar if gun stores were given tax dollars? And guns are a specific right granted by the Constitution. Your tax dollars support this group. ... Any wonder why they'd be down with selling dead babies?

 

[Troglodyte]

"...the "irresponsible and reckless people" whose religious scruples "prevent their exercising control over their numbers.” Sanger concludes “there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped."

Sorry, but YES, I do think he had a point.

Our tax dollars support this group their entire lives, many times after they have done something harmful, fatal or destructive.

You sure as hell don't want to live among them but God forbid someone stop their procreation? Do explain.

 

[Yinzerlyn]

"...the "irresponsible and reckless people" whose religious scruples "prevent their exercising control over their numbers.” Sanger concludes “there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped."

Sorry, but YES, I do think he had a point.

Our tax dollars support this group their entire lives, many times after they have done something harmful, fatal or destructive.

You sure as hell don't want to live among them but God forbid someone stop their procreation? Do explain.

Who is he? Sanger was a woman.

 

[Superman]

Since Gareth hasn't chimed in...

What is funnier than a dead baby?
A dead baby in a clown costume.

 

[Troglodyte]

Who is he? Sanger was a woman.

Well, in that case, that uppity ***** needed to sit down and stfu. It was 1921, after all.

 

[Rod Farva]

In “The Morality of Birth Control,” a 1921 speech, Sanger divided society into three groups: the "educated and informed" class that regulated the size of their families, the "intelligent and responsible" who desired to control their families however did not have the means or the knowledge and the "irresponsible and reckless people" whose religious scruples "prevent their exercising control over their numbers.” Sanger concludes “there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped

So they were so "intelligent and responsible" that they didn't know ******* causes babies?

Since Gareth hasn't chimed in...

What is funnier than a dead baby?
A dead baby in a clown costume.

Maybe he's been retro-aborted?

 

[oneforthebus]

"...the "irresponsible and reckless people" whose religious scruples "prevent their exercising control over their numbers.” Sanger concludes “there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped."

Sorry, but YES, I do think he had a point.

Our tax dollars support this group their entire lives, many times after they have done something harmful, fatal or destructive.

You sure as hell don't want to live among them but God forbid someone stop their procreation? Do explain.

I think you've got this a bit backward Trog. Maybe our tax dollars should stop supporting them.

My Irish Italian husband is one of 9 children and was supported by his parents, and later himself (started cutting lawns around age 12 and hasn't been without a job since). He grew up in a neighborhood full of similar families. He and all of his siblings are tax-paying working members of society.

Maybe it's when we started paying people to have babies and paying people not to work that they stopped worrying about having babies they couldn't support? We have millions of abortions every year yet we still have plenty of people having babies they can't support. Think it's due to lack of access to abortion? No, it's because we're picking up the tab for it. Stop subsidizing it and watch the numbers plummet.

Somehow decades ago, despite a lack of access to birth control and despite this biological need for sex that we are supposedly incapable of controlling, most people did not have babies until they were in a stable relationship and could afford to care for them. Magically now people are incapable of that same restraint. Why? Is it because we removed all necessity for restraint perhaps?

Nah, that couldn't be it.

 

[Troglodyte]

I think you've got this a bit backward Trog. Maybe our tax dollars should stop supporting them.

My Irish Italian husband is one of 9 children and was supported by his parents, and later himself (started cutting lawns around age 12 and hasn't been without a job since). He grew up in a neighborhood full of similar families. He and all of his siblings are tax-paying working members of society.

Maybe it's when we started paying people to have babies and paying people not to work that they stopped worrying about having babies they couldn't support? We have millions of abortions every year yet we still have plenty of people having babies they can't support. Think it's due to lack of access to abortion? No, it's because we're picking up the tab for it. Stop subsidizing it and watch the numbers plummet.

Somehow decades ago, despite a lack of access to birth control and despite this biological need for sex that we are supposedly incapable of controlling, most people did not have babies until they were in a stable relationship and could afford to care for them. Magically now people are incapable of that same restraint. Why? Is it because we removed all necessity for restraint perhaps?

Nah, that couldn't be it.

That's great, but name the candidate, liberal or conservative, who is proposing cutting off families with children on welfare.

 

[oneforthebus]

That's great, but name the candidate, liberal or conservative, who is proposing cutting off families with children on welfare.

There are none, and that's a huge problem. Yet you are willing to push abortion as the solution when it clearly isn't one.

 

[tapeANaspirin2it]

"...the "irresponsible and reckless people" whose religious scruples "prevent their exercising control over their numbers.” Sanger concludes “there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped."

Sorry, but YES, I do think he had a point.

Our tax dollars support this group their entire lives, many times after they have done something harmful, fatal or destructive.

You sure as hell don't want to live among them but God forbid someone stop their procreation? Do explain.

You want me to explain why I'd be against a group that wants to STOP another group that they deem inferior to be able to have kids?

Sanger is like a moderate Nazi. She wanted a master race and she'd be just fine with rounding up the "unfit" but killing them is a bit much. She just wants to STOP them from reproducing so they go extinct on their own. You know, cuz she's such a humanitarian, champion of women. So long as those women are white and went to the right schools.

Sanger spoke at Klan rallies. This is the woman the left would hold up as a hero.

 

[Troglodyte]

You want me to explain why I'd be against a group that wants to STOP another group that they deem inferior to be able to have kids?

Explain the concern for this group before they're born given the disdain for them after they're born.

 

[Troglodyte]

There are none, and that's a huge problem. Yet you are willing to push abortion as the solution when it clearly isn't one.

No legal abortion exists, and it does reduce the number of kids on welfare. So, whether you support it or not, it is a partial solution.

You think welfare is a huge problem now, imagine the problem with an additional 10 million kids sucking on the tit.

 

[hamster]

imagine the problem with an additional 10 million kids sucking on the tit.

Imagine a day when the Gov't stops paying irresponsible people to have kids, and unwanted children become a burden, and not a meal ticket. That is when you will see people using birth control, and preventing unwanted pregnancies.

 

[Troglodyte]

Imagine a day when the Gov't stops paying irresponsible people to have kids, and unwanted children become a burden, and not a meal ticket. That is when you will see people using birth control, and preventing unwanted pregnancies.

Perhaps, but as I pointed out above, nobody seems to be proposing we do that and somebody came up with the terrible idea of encouraging and organizing those people to vote.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

That's great, but name the candidate, liberal or conservative, who is proposing cutting off families with children on welfare.

There are none, and that's a huge problem. Yet you are willing to push abortion as the solution when it clearly isn't one.

The current welfare generations are a lost cause. They have no skills and no work ethic and most have never known anyone in their family who had to get up every day and go to work. There is no point in trying to change it. Best thing to do is pass a law saying "Everyone born on or after Jan. 1, 20xx get three years of welfare for life, max, and no additional payments for kids born after that date". That would fix it real quick.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

After signing welfare into law, Lyndon Baines Johnson said " I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years"

Never a more prophetic statement has there been spoken.

 

[IndySteel]

After signing welfare into law, Lyndon Baines Johnson said " I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years"

Never a more prophetic statement has there been spoken.

But wait, isn't it republicans who are racist?

 

[Steeltime]

You think welfare is a huge problem now, imagine the problem with an additional 10 million kids sucking on the tit.

Look, the idea that abortion is a good idea since it reduces the number of children receiving government benefits is insane. Really, it's insane. The problem is and remains the fact that the taxpayer is responsible for paying for other people's children. Until that changes, then the idea that reducing the number of recipients via abortion is just plain crazy.

If we accept your position as legitimate, then would it not be a companion idea that we kill recipients? Just line them up and shoot them, right? Yes, yes, laws preclude such tactic, but we can always change the laws.

Or maybe we just stop forcing taxpayers to pay for other people's kids. Wouldn't that be a better idea?

 

[Troglodyte]

Look, the idea that abortion is a good idea since it reduces the number of children receiving government benefits is insane. Really, it's insane.

No, abortion is legal for a different reason. Nothing in Roe v Wade referred to controlling the number of welfare recipients. It's not that it's a good idea, it's a good consequence.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

But wait, isn't it republicans who are racist?

Yes because they don't give away money and benefits to blacks in exchange for votes.

 

[Rod Farva]

Explain the concern for this group before they're born given the disdain for them after they're born.

Easy....those born have a chance to escape poverty and contribute to society....see Ben Carson's bio. Those aborted don't get a chance.

Question for you. If tax dollars didn't support PP and abortion, but depended on contributions, would you be a donor?

No, abortion is legal for a different reason. Nothing in Roe v Wade referred to controlling the number of welfare recipients. It's not that it's a good idea, it's a good consequence.

Machiavelli would be proud.

 

[Troglodyte]

Question for you. If tax dollars didn't support PP and abortion, but depended on contributions, would you be a donor?

No. On the other hand, if they made abortion illegal again, I wouldn't adopt a kid or become a foster parent either. Would you?

 

[Superman]

when Libs are pushed too far on this issue...

 

[Rod Farva]

No. On the other hand, if they made abortion illegal again, I wouldn't adopt a kid or become a foster parent either. Would you?

So your convictions only run so deep. Got it. And your question is a canard....we're discussing tax payer funded abortion (and actually the thread started out about PBA's and illegal activity by PP) but I'll, answer anyway. No, I wouldn't......but it doesn't have to be a choice of unwanted kids or abortion. There are a multitude of means of not conceiving children that aren't wanted. I took responsibility to make sure I didn't add to the problem.....everyone else must as well.

 

[Troglodyte]

So your convictions only run so deep. Got it. And your question is a canard....we're discussing tax payer funded abortion (and actually the thread started out about PBA's and illegal activity by PP) but I'll, answer anyway. No, I wouldn't......but it doesn't have to be a choice of unwanted kids or abortion. There are a multitude of means of not conceiving children that aren't wanted. I took responsibility to make sure I didn't add to the problem.....everyone else must as well.

I think just about everyone's convictions regarding this matter only run so deep, they just have a hard time admitting it.

There are people who came to realize this the hard way on both sides, I'm fortunate not to have been one of them.