First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next  Last
Post Reply Why don't pro-life people advocate defunding the NRA instead?
46 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Nebraska
Offline
Posted 4/28/16
Also, are you shaming people for supporting the defense of defenseless unborn children, and the support of an organization that fights for the right to defend your family from people who could potentially kill them... Rephrase it how you want but that doesn't change what it is.

17179 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 4/28/16
How many pro lifers love child support?
6377 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/28/16 , edited 4/28/16

JustineKo2 wrote:

Actually I'm not sure if you can really "defund" the NRA because I don't know whether it receives funds from the government like Planned Parenthood. This question is in reaction to all the conservatives wanting to defund PP for accusing them of using taxpayer money to subsidize costs of actual abortions performed for low income women.

The reason I suggested DEfunding the NRA instead is because isn't the NRA technically pro-DEATH? If you own a gun, it is actually 30 times more likely that you'll shoot yourself than an invader will. They advocate the use of deadly force by a private individual as a means to ensure one's protection from whatever they feel they need protection from. Think about it, every time a person dies from being shot equals another buck for the NRA and gun makers. Every dollar in their bank accounts and thick wallets has blood tied to it.


where in the world did you hear that owning a gun makes it so that you are more likely to shoot yourself? I have lots of family to own guns, and some that have been into shooting as a sport, and guess what not once have they shot themselves or anyone else. that you say this just goes to show how extremely ignorant you are. Anyone who owns a gun, or is in the NRA are deadly serious when it comes to gun safety. You, never point a gun at anyone, you carry it facing the ground, everything to ensure that there are no accidents.

and When accidents do happen it is A. an accident or B. stupidity and B is much more likely when the person is ignorant.

the NRA is pro-gun safety and responsibility. While PP is pro baby murder. there is a huge difference.
46 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Nebraska
Offline
Posted 4/28/16

lambofgenesis wrote:


JustineKo2 wrote:

Actually I'm not sure if you can really "defund" the NRA because I don't know whether it receives funds from the government like Planned Parenthood. This question is in reaction to all the conservatives wanting to defund PP for accusing them of using taxpayer money to subsidize costs of actual abortions performed for low income women.

The reason I suggested DEfunding the NRA instead is because isn't the NRA technically pro-DEATH? If you own a gun, it is actually 30 times more likely that you'll shoot yourself than an invader will. They advocate the use of deadly force by a private individual as a means to ensure one's protection from whatever they feel they need protection from. Think about it, every time a person dies from being shot equals another buck for the NRA and gun makers. Every dollar in their bank accounts and thick wallets has blood tied to it.


The difference is, guns have a probability of SAVING people from people who were probably going to die on death row anyway or be locked up for life or some shiz like htat.

Abortions 100% kill babies, and sometimes, mommies too! :D

And don't even try with: "Oh but how about those medical complications where the baby and mom's lives are in danger" -- dude that kind of abortion is a legal medical procedure that wasn't ever against the law to begin with -_-


That's something that I never understood, and I would appreciate someone explaining it to me, but doesn't the hippocratic oath say "I will utterly reject harm", yet you are literally killing what is soon to become a baby.

Also, there are cases of failed abortions out there and it is disgusting. I do not recommend looking those up, but it is really sad and disgusting
46 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Nebraska
Offline
Posted 4/28/16
An estimated 8,250,914 knife-related injuries were treated in US EDs from 1990 to 2008, averaging 434,259 injuries annually, or 1190 per day. The injury rate was 1.56 injuries per 1000 US resident population per year. Fingers/thumbs were injured most often, and lacerations were the most common type of injury. Pocket/utility knives were associated with injury most often (47%; 1,169,960 of 2,481,994), followed by cooking/kitchen knives (36%; 900,812 of 2,481,994). Children were more likely than adults to be injured while playing with a knife or during horseplay. One percent of patients were admitted to the hospital, and altercation-related stabbings to the trunk accounted for 52% of these admissions

I say defund the NKCA, WHO's WITH ME?
7547 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Ark-La-Tex
Offline
Posted 4/28/16
A better question would be why so many pro-lifers support the death penalty.
51167 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 4/28/16

geauxtigers1989 wrote:

A better question would be why so many pro-lifers support the death penalty.


The OP should take notes. Now this is a legit criticism. Pro-life means supporting life from beginning to end. Actively trying to end someone's life, no matter what the reason, contradicts that. It's one thing if you're attacked and you just happen to kill your attacker in the heat of the moment while trying to survive. Killing someone who's already locked away behind bars serves no real purpose.

The OP's argument linking abortion to gun rights fell apart the moment he thought of making that connection.
27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 4/28/16

sundin13 wrote:


maxgale wrote:
Here is the founder of Planned Parenthood:



“While I personally believe in the sterilization of the feeble-minded, the insane and syphilitic, I have not been able to discover that these measures are more than superficial deterrents when applied to the constantly growing stream of the unfit. They are excellent means of meeting a certain phase of the situation, but I believe in regard to these, as in regard to other eugenic means, that they do not go to the bottom of the matter.” (“Birth Control and Racial Betterment,” Feb. 1919, The Birth Control Review).



In a letter to Clarence Gable in 1939, Sanger wrote: “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members” (Margaret Sanger commenting on the ‘Negro Project’ in a letter to Gamble, Dec. 10, 1939).




http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/5/grossu-margaret-sanger-eugenicist/




While she was a supporter of Eugenics, the latter quote is her saying that she doesn't want people to get the wrong idea about the movement, not that she was secretly trying to exterminate the black population.

“No serious scholar and none of the dozens of black leaders who supported Sanger’s work have ever suggested that she tried to reduce the black population or set up black abortion mills, the implication in much of the extremist anti-choice material.”

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/11/cains-false-attack-on-planned-parenthood/

EDIT: At your edit, I don't see how the Breitbart article proves anything other than them not wanting to lose money on the deal and the other link shows a few quotes which are hard to get a read on out of context, but even out of context, most of them don't imply any illegal activity.

EDIT2: Sawyer (director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s “biorepository,”), July 20: In reality, $30-100 probably constitutes a loss for [Planned Parenthood]. The costs associated with collection, processing, storage, and inventory and records management for specimens are very high. Most hospitals will provide tissue blocks from surgical procedures (ones no longer needed for clinical purposes, and without identity) for research, and cost recover for their time and effort in the range of $100-500 per case/block. In the realm of tissues for research $30-100 is completely reasonable and normal fee.





I dunno.


If someone says they are for genocide for "undesirables", I am willing to believe that when they talk about exterminating other groups of people they find "undesirable" that they mean it.


Especially when the individual gave dozens of speeches to terrorists who have a history of murdering members of the other group she was referring to.



And I guess you are somehow ignoring the fact that the official material produced by Planned Parenthood itself repeatedly references how financially rewarding selling the parts can be, and instead take the word of someone who has a conflict of interest in ensuring they can continue to receive those parts from Planned Parenthood?
28767 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28
Offline
Posted 4/28/16

PhantomGundam wrote:
Pro-life means supporting life from beginning to end.


It sounds like that's what it means, but most pro-lifers are against virtually all forms of welfare or "socialism" (except social security and medicare, because... well, take a guess). That's why the pro-choice side has taken to calling them "pro-fetus."

Most of this is really just sexism, unsurprisingly. Guns are cool and manly and kinda phallic, and bad guys get shot all the time in movies, so people assume they must be doing more good than harm. Abortions are yucky and involve women making life-or-death decisions, which to many people is just unacceptable. Gun death statistics (whole lot of suicide and accidents) and the realities of (unwanted) pregnancy and so on just can't beat culture and prejudice.

The death penalty seems like a quick and decisive punishment for a serious crime, so it appeals to the same sort of people; even though in reality it's laborious and expensive because the system used by the government to execute people obviously needs to be rather convoluted so they don't overuse it, and despite that we often find innocent people who sat on death row for years.
13577 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / Australia
Offline
Posted 4/28/16
Looks like I'm late for the movie. *Gets comfy*.

11505 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/29/16

pmcinelly784 wrote:


lambofgenesis wrote:


JustineKo2 wrote:

Actually I'm not sure if you can really "defund" the NRA because I don't know whether it receives funds from the government like Planned Parenthood. This question is in reaction to all the conservatives wanting to defund PP for accusing them of using taxpayer money to subsidize costs of actual abortions performed for low income women.

The reason I suggested DEfunding the NRA instead is because isn't the NRA technically pro-DEATH? If you own a gun, it is actually 30 times more likely that you'll shoot yourself than an invader will. They advocate the use of deadly force by a private individual as a means to ensure one's protection from whatever they feel they need protection from. Think about it, every time a person dies from being shot equals another buck for the NRA and gun makers. Every dollar in their bank accounts and thick wallets has blood tied to it.


The difference is, guns have a probability of SAVING people from people who were probably going to die on death row anyway or be locked up for life or some shiz like htat.

Abortions 100% kill babies, and sometimes, mommies too! :D

And don't even try with: "Oh but how about those medical complications where the baby and mom's lives are in danger" -- dude that kind of abortion is a legal medical procedure that wasn't ever against the law to begin with -_-


That's something that I never understood, and I would appreciate someone explaining it to me, but doesn't the hippocratic oath say "I will utterly reject harm", yet you are literally killing what is soon to become a baby.

Also, there are cases of failed abortions out there and it is disgusting. I do not recommend looking those up, but it is really sad and disgusting


I looked it up. Really sad, can't believe people want that just because they had sex and didn't want to deal with the consequences. In some states abortion was/is allowed up to the 7th/8th month.

My pro-choice friend told me that a human isn't a human until it can speak, otherwise it's just an animal because it can't fend for itself so it's okay to kill it because it's depending on you <-- *sigh*

But like I said in my other thread, everything in the universe is a spectrum. I'm not sure if it's so not okay to "kill" a fertilized egg if it's legit just 1-2-3-4 cells big. I'm not sure if it's any different than killing sperm or eggs. So I guess that's why the Plan B pills are okay?

but I mean, that should be the extent to pro choice. If you FORGOT to use a condom, weren't on contraception pills, and had sex... at LEAST the NEXT MORNING you can go: "Ohhh okay so I can take the Plan B pill and I still won't get preggy" BUT IF YOU DONT EVEN DO THAT. THEN WHY DO YOU DESERVE TO NOT DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES?! You had not 1, not 2, but THREE chances AND one of those can be done THE NEXT DAY.

If you're that irresponsible about creating a human life that you couldn't be bothered to run to the store the next morning to buy a Plan B pill then why does the baby deserve to die for your carelessness?






4009 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Abyss
Offline
Posted 4/29/16
I have come to the conclusion... reading every post in this thread...

This thread is stupid and pointless. I think we should just let it die. Flame bait is flame bait no matter how you look at it.
28192 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/29/16

lambofgenesis wrote:
but I mean, that should be the extent to pro choice. If you FORGOT to use a condom, weren't on contraception pills, and had sex... at LEAST the NEXT MORNING you can go: "Ohhh okay so I can take the Plan B pill and I still won't get preggy" BUT IF YOU DONT EVEN DO THAT. THEN WHY DO YOU DESERVE TO NOT DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES?! You had not 1, not 2, but THREE chances AND one of those can be done THE NEXT DAY.


Ahh, here we go. Good ol' fashion slut shaming. Now we're getting to the real root of the issue. -.-



69881 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Oklahoma
Offline
Posted 4/29/16

PrinceJudar wrote:

. . . Suicide rates are pretty stagnate, even in comparison with other countries that do heavily restrict guns.



Not OP but felt like hopping in here:

It's believed restricting guns did have an impact on suicide rates in Australia. The general premise is that guns are more likely to be used in split second decisions where other methods that require more effort may have the person change their mind/seek help or are more likely to be found/rescued.

I'm against banning guns for a few reasons, but based on the research I looked into before it seems restricting guns helped reduce suicide in Australia - they didn't start picking up other methods and replace them.

Now of course, this isn't to say guns cause suicide - the underlying cause is something else. Just that restricting them can seem to have a positive reduction which would require more research. Equally, it may not be true for any country that tries it as the metrics only reflected Australia and may have been a false positive (without tons of countries able to provide pre/post bans it's hard to gauge).
28192 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/29/16

zinjashike wrote:
Not OP but felt like hopping in here:

It's believed restricting guns did have an impact on suicide rates in Australia. The general premise is that guns are more likely to be used in split second decisions where other methods that require more effort may have the person change their mind/seek help or are more likely to be found/rescued.


Yep. Gun availability does raise the suicide rate in the US. Especially among young people and more specifically hand guns. Long guns are less of a factor. As are firearms in general that are kept secured/locked up instead of loaded and readily available. Its instantaneous and has little chance of failure / survival until found. Comparatively, suicide by other means does not go down when gun availability goes up. So its not that suicidal people are just shifting to a more preferable method.

There's specific groups of suicidal people for whom the impulse / mood would pass if they had time / support. These types are naturally going to be more successful at killing themselves the better access they have to instant methods of doing so.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.