Thread: NRA defends itself after corporations pull away

Originally Posted by Judy

1. The state has the right to pay for it if they want to, there's nothing wrong with a state paying for an abortion for someone who can't afford it on their own.
Why would there be something wrong with that? I don't believe it's wrong for the federal government to pay for them when the girl or woman can't afford it, but we have a Hyde Amendment at the federal level that prevents the use of federal money to fund abortions, which is why no federal money is used to pay for abortions since 1974.

The state is using our money to pay for it. And the evidence is that Federal money is paying for them despite the claims that it is not. Throwing the money in a pool is laundering it so you can't say what money went directly to abortion. If the government pays for an insurance policy to cover abortions, they will claim that the money did not go for abortions.

Originally Posted by Judy

2. Planned Parenthood may be the single "largest" provider. When I researched this a few years ago, Planned Parenthood either provides or arranges through referrals, 22% of the elective abortions in the US. But whether it's 22% or 35%, who cares? They are not providing the vast majority of the abortions in the US, so why target them?

Here we go again! According to the article, 49% of the abortions through them are performed by them! And as for this argument that because they are not doing over 50% of the nations abortions, they are a minority, I hear the same argument about whites. In California "whites" makeup about 46%. So they are the largest minority. There is no "majority". Can you name the second largest abortion provider? I can't find one. In California there is listed 121 providers. But PP is apparently the only "abortion mill"!

Originally Posted by Judy

It's a legal, moral and vital service for pregnant girls and women, regardless of who pays for it or who provides them.

It is legal because a court decided to make law, Congress would not. That is not to say I disagree with Roe-v-Wade. But Roe-v-Wade was a ruling that said it could not be prohibited. At this point I still agree with that. But the ruling did not say it was a right to be paid for by the public.

As for "moral", that is a real controversy. As I have pointed out, I prefer avoiding pregnancy over abortion. However, as I have also said, I feel it is better for a fetus to be aborted than to be born to be abused!

As for "vital", pregnancy is an easily avoidable affliction. Again, as I have said, abstinence is the most effective and, I believe, the most healthy all around. This too is controversial. Before Roe-v-Wade women aborted by many bad ways, with unqualified doctors, self abortion and other methods that sometimes killed them. Roe-v-Wade, by making it legal, allowed them to get proper medical care. But it also became a license to get pregnant all you want. And that is bad!

Originally Posted by Judy

3. Then they should go after the other 78% of the "sinners" providing abortions to rich white people and see how well that works out for them.

Those "rich" sinners have always paid for their own abortions!

Originally Posted by Judy

4. Yeah, it was a "no-no" until you needed one, and then off to a state where it was legal to get rid of it.

Yes! I was aware of one in my church who disappeared soon after it was know she was pregnant. I knew of only two girls in my high school (one of them the one from my church) who got pregnant. It wasn't epidemic then. And I don't know that either of them got an abortion. They had to leave school because of school rules, so I never saw them again.

Originally Posted by Judy

All the hypocrites better keep their eyes open for the BIG BOOMERANG, especially the Baptists and Catholics.

It's already here! Much of the molest and abuse I have seen is religion based. And those children, not imprisoned by their parents like with that Paris California couple with all those children, those children will rebel once they are of age, and have grown up uneducated in how to deal with their urges.

Originally Posted by Judy

5. I have no problem with promiscuity.

I do! Expanding what I wrote earlier, if homosexuals were monogamous, they would not have had diseases like AIDS wipe half of them out. These days, heterosexuals seem to be competing with them in that category.

Originally Posted by Judy

It's a personal choice to be so. It's not something I'm interested in, but if it appeals to someone else, I have no problem with that. I don't support repression.

But it is not very "personal" these days.

Originally Posted by Judy

6. The abstinence thing has been proven unnatural.

I'd like to see that evidence! Yes, it goes against our natural instincts, but so does our self restraint against murder.

Originally Posted by Judy

7. No, it will never happen. Americans will never go back to days of either repression or oppression.

And I don't want them to. But I would like it tone back a ways. We have killings in schools. They will be next to arm. But we already lost a lot of freedom when we fly and do a lot of other things. It is not because they have become less safe, it is because this free society values others less. That is a learned behavior!

Originally Posted by Judy

This country was founded on the fundamental philosophy of "laissez-faire", which means to leave the people alone.

Yet we have many laws that do just the opposite! We are a "democracy", yet when we go to war, our military is a dictatorship. That is because a democracy cannot effectively fight a dictatorship. So freedom does have responsibilities!

Originally Posted by jtdc

The state is using our money to pay for it. And the evidence is that Federal money is paying for them despite the claims that it is not. Throwing the money in a pool is laundering it so you can't say what money went directly to abortion. If the government pays for an insurance policy to cover abortions, they will claim that the money did not go for abortions.

Here we go again! According to the article, 49% of the abortions through them are performed by them! And as for this argument that because they are not doing over 50% of the nations abortions, they are a minority, I hear the same argument about whites. In California "whites" makeup about 46%. So they are the largest minority. There is no "majority". Can you name the second largest abortion provider? I can't find one. In California there is listed 121 providers. But PP is apparently the only "abortion mill"!

It is legal because a court decided to make law, Congress would not. That is not to say I disagree with Roe-v-Wade. But Roe-v-Wade was a ruling that said it could not be prohibited. At this point I still agree with that. But the ruling did not say it was a right to be paid for by the public.

As for "moral", that is a real controversy. As I have pointed out, I prefer avoiding pregnancy over abortion. However, as I have also said, I feel it is better for a fetus to be aborted than to be born to be abused!

As for "vital", pregnancy is an easily avoidable affliction. Again, as I have said, abstinence is the most effective and, I believe, the most healthy all around. This too is controversial. Before Roe-v-Wade women aborted by many bad ways, with unqualified doctors, self abortion and other methods that sometimes killed them. Roe-v-Wade, by making it legal, allowed them to get proper medical care. But it also became a license to get pregnant all you want. And that is bad!

Those "rich" sinners have always paid for their own abortions!

Yes! I was aware of one in my church who disappeared soon after it was know she was pregnant. I knew of only two girls in my high school (one of them the one from my church) who got pregnant. It wasn't epidemic then. And I don't know that either of them got an abortion. They had to leave school because of school rules, so I never saw them again.

It's already here! Much of the molest and abuse I have seen is religion based. And those children, not imprisoned by their parents like with that Paris California couple with all those children, those children will rebel once they are of age, and have grown up uneducated in how to deal with their urges.

I do! Expanding what I wrote earlier, if homosexuals were monogamous, they would not have had diseases like AIDS wipe half of them out. These days, heterosexuals seem to be competing with them in that category.

But it is not very "personal" these days.

I'd like to see that evidence! Yes, it goes against our natural instincts, but so does our self restraint against murder.

And I don't want them to. But I would like it tone back a ways. We have killings in schools. They will be next to arm. But we already lost a lot of freedom when we fly and do a lot of other things. It is not because they have become less safe, it is because this free society values others less. That is a learned behavior!

Yet we have many laws that do just the opposite! We are a "democracy", yet when we go to war, our military is a dictatorship. That is because a democracy cannot effectively fight a dictatorship. So freedom does have responsibilities!

I see now the reason we're having difficulty here. You think we're a democracy. We are not. We are a Republic for as long as we can demonstrate enough intelligence, common sense and loyalty to hold on to it.

Originally Posted by Judy

I see now the reason we're having difficulty here. You think we're a democracy. We are not.

No, I don't think that's the reason.

Republic or democracy, we just disagree!

Yes, that, too!!



How about I don't force you to terminate a pregnancy and you don't force me to finish one. How about that?!