TakeYouToTasker Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/democratic-platform-endorses-taxpayer-funded-abortions_651589.html Democratic Platform Endorses Taxpayer-Funded Abortions By JOHN MCCORMACK The 2012 Democratic party will officially adopt an extreme position on the issue of abortion on Tuesday. According to a copy of the party platform, which was released online just before midnight on Monday, "The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay." That last part--"regardless of ability to pay"--is an endorsement of taxpayer-funded abortions, a policy that President Obama has personally endorsed. Obama wants Medicaid to pay directly for elective abortions, and Obamacare will allow beneficiaries to use federal subsidies to purchase health care plans that cover elective abortions. According to a 2009 Quinnipiac poll, 72 percent of voters oppose public funding of abortion and 23 percent support it. In other words, public funding of abortion--a policy President Obama actively supports--is as unpopular as banning abortion in the case of rape, a policy on which the media have focused much attention over the past two weeks despite the fact that neither presidential candidate supports it. The 2012 Democratic party also endorses an unrestricted right to abortion-on-demand. According to the platform, on the issue of abortion "there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way." In 2003, Obama was asked if he was pro-choice on abortion "in all situations including the late-term thing." Obama replied: "I'm pro-choice." In 1992, then-Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton tried to soften the party's image on abortion by expressing his desire to make abortion "safe, legal, and rare." Although the Democratic party platforms in 2000 and 2004 stated the party's goal is to make abortion "rare," the 2012 platform makes no such claim. "In 2000, the Democratic platform said the party's goal was 'to make abortion less necessary and more rare,' Jeff Jacoby wrote in the Boston Globe last week. "The 2004 platform declared, 'Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.' But even calling for abortion to be 'rare' is now too much for the Democrats' platform committee, which deleted the word in 2008." The word "rare" did not make a comeback in 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 Cost of an abortion is a drop in the bucket vs a lifetime of food stamps, tax rebates and a dozen other give-a-ways to anyone who wants to spend more time breeding than working. Fine by me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 i cant in any rational way defend abortion after the 1st tri-mester... its pretty much equivalent to murder. yes ive heard the argument that a mother shouldnt be forced to give up an organ to save her child outside the womb but the mother or state wouldnt directly kill the child. that seems like a pretty big distinction. ( not to mention, i dont know any mom or any parent or stranger for that matter who wouldnt give up their organ to save a child)... not to mention, the baby in the womb is not really taking anything away from the mother by her giving birth... i mean, one could argue that a mother shouldnt be forced to give up her time, money, and effort to help her child, but would you then say its ok to kill the child? i understand its her body, but christ, its the babies body/mind/life too... i simply cannot justfiy killing a baby who has no real reason to die... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 4, 2012 Author Share Posted September 4, 2012 Cost of an abortion is a drop in the bucket vs a lifetime of food stamps, tax rebates and a dozen other give-a-ways to anyone who wants to spend more time breeding than working. Fine by me. You've presented a false dilemma, and failed to address a major concern. I also find your channeling of Margret Sanger to be more than just a little bit disturbing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 Great. Another abortion thread. These are always so productive. PS--Don't know/care if KD is being sarcastic in his response, but I agree completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 4, 2012 Author Share Posted September 4, 2012 Great. Another abortion thread. These are always so productive. PS--Don't know/care if KD is being sarcastic in his response, but I agree completely. Kill the minorities early, before they start costing you money? Positive eugenics are bad, mmkay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 Kill the minorities early, before they start costing you money? Positive eugenics are bad, mmkay? Why stop at minorities? http://wildandwonderfulwhites.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 Why stop at minorities? http://wildandwonderfulwhites.com/ Can we legalize retroactive abortions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 4, 2012 Author Share Posted September 4, 2012 (edited) Why stop at minorities? http://wildandwonderfulwhites.com/ In 2000, whites made up 78 percent of live births, but only 57 percent of abortions, and since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision black women's percentage of abortions have consistantly been more than twice their percentage of live births. Edited September 4, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 Can we legalize retroactive abortions? Yes, but only for minorities. In 2000, whites made up 78 percent of live births, but only 57 percent of abortions, and since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision black women's percentage of abortions have consistantly been more than twice their percentage of live births. That's a lot of unsolved hate crimes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 Abortions are bad mmkay? Unwanted pregnancy, especially in low income areas with young people having babies and no families or stress on education or raising the kid etc etc...that's a problem that effects federal spending, crime, and a slew of other problems and it feeds itself. Anything the government cares to do to make the option of careful/responsible reproduction is fine by me. INCOMING GARY M: You killing babies! They just should be abstinent! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 4, 2012 Author Share Posted September 4, 2012 That's a lot of unsolved hate crimes... Hey man, I'm not here to form your opinions for you; I'm just the only guy at the party with data. With that said, you really aren't embracing the ugliest policies and ideologies of the 1930's are you? Unwanted pregnancy, especially in low income areas with young people having babies and no families or stress on education or raising the kid etc etc...that's a problem that effects federal spending, crime, and a slew of other problems and it feeds itself. Anything the government cares to do to make the option of careful/responsible reproduction is fine by me. I'm speechless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 PS--Don't know/care if KD is being sarcastic in his response, but I agree completely. Nope, not in the slightest. If the parents themselves don't want the child, I don't feel any personal obligation to step in and a) tell them they are wrong and b) assume financial responsibly for the child. Kill the minorities early, before they start costing you money? Positive eugenics are bad, mmkay? Oh brother, talk about throwing a bullsh-- grendade. The whole purpose of this thread is to give you a soapbox to express your outrage over public funding of abortions, and now you are going to feign shock and horror when I point out the obvious that the average child creates more financial burden on taxpayers than would the cost of an abortion? Puh-leeze! I better just scream 'racism' before this thread gets out of hand with people calling me out for being full of ****. In 2000, whites made up 78 percent of live births, but only 57 percent of abortions, and since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision black women's percentage of abortions have consistantly been more than twice their percentage of live births. Oh, so more white babies are aborted than black babies. So much for your "kill the minorities" idiocy, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 Cost of an abortion is a drop in the bucket vs a lifetime of food stamps, tax rebates and a dozen other give-a-ways to anyone who wants to spend more time breeding than working. Fine by me. What we should do is offer an incentive. "Ladies, when you're living on the government dole and have one baby after another, we've come to realize that it costs the federal government about $164,278 to feed, house, and educate a baby you don't really even want. So since you refuse the free birth control from the Sandra Fluke 30-Year-College Professional Student Fund, here's the deal: abort the baby now and we'll cut you a check for $12,000...and we'll throw in basic cable. Do it during the first tri-mester and we'll add HBO and the Oxygen Channel. And don't forget to sign up for our Frequent Abortion Card Program...get five abortions in 18 months, and you're 6th abortion gets you a smartphone!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 4, 2012 Author Share Posted September 4, 2012 Nope, not in the slightest. If the parents themselves don't want the child, I don't feel any personal obligation to step in and a) tell them they are wrong and b) assume financial responsibly for the child. I don't feel the personal obligation to tell them they're wrong either, nor do I feel inclined to assume financial responsibility for the child. Oh brother, talk about throwing a bullsh-- grendade. The whole purpose of this thread is to give you a soapbox to express your outrage over public funding of abortions, and now you are going to feign shock and horror when I point out the obvious that the average child creates more financial burden on taxpayers than would the cost of an abortion? Puh-leeze!False dilemma. I better just scream 'racism' before this thread gets out of hand with people calling me out for being full of ****. Oh, good grief. Really? This is where you're going to steer the thread? Oh, so more white babies are aborted than black babies. So much for your "kill the minorities" idiocy, huh? I suppose it's easier for you to ignore data points, and engage in logical fallacies than to undertake an honest argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 I don't feel the personal obligation to tell them they're wrong either, nor do I feel inclined to assume financial responsibility for the child. Newsflash: You are assuming fiscal responsibility for every one of those non-aborted babies whose parents aren't paying their share of taxes. So no, that's not a false dilemma. Oh, good grief. Really? This is where you're going to steer the thread? No you hypocritcal douchbag, that's where YOU took the thread with your pathetic "Kill the minorities early, before they start costing you money" statement. I suppose it's easier for you to ignore data points, and engage in logical fallacies than to undertake an honest argument? Take a look in the mirror. This thread was (supposedly) about your outrage over taxpayer funding of abortion. I gave you your honest argument by pointing out that aborted babies (those who own parents don't even want them) are far more likely to cost the taxpayers far more than the cost of a simple abortion procedure. And you responded to that by running right to the race card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Abortions are bad mmkay? Unwanted pregnancy, especially in low income areas with young people having babies and no families or stress on education or raising the kid etc etc...that's a problem that effects federal spending, crime, and a slew of other problems and it feeds itself. Anything the government cares to do to make the option of careful/responsible reproduction is fine by me. INCOMING GARY M: You killing babies! They just should be abstinent! Funny, why is it that the liberals always cry about the cost of raising an unborn child? And they never consider adoption? It's is a matter of principles, something most of the liberals(including you) don't have. I do not want my tax money to pay for abortion period. Remember women can never be free, unless they can kill their unborn babies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Funny, why is it that the liberals always cry about the cost of raising an unborn child? And they never consider adoption? It's is a matter of principles, something most of the liberals(including you) don't have. I do not want my tax money to pay for abortion period. Remember women can never be free, unless they can kill their unborn babies. Not "kill babies". Merely choose not to be pregnant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck_dodgers007 Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Yup! Abortion bad, letting poor people starve to death good That's what Republicans want Seriously that's the republican position Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Yup! Abortion bad, letting poor people starve to death good That's what Republicans want Seriously that's the republican position Well to a libtard it is. To anyone with an IQ over 40 it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts