08 May 18
Originally posted by @whodeyIf you had been an Iowa legislator, would you have voted for the Bill [in this OP], voted against it, or would you have abstained?
I don't really care what percentage approve or disapprove of abortion. Factoring this into the issue is a logical fallacy because it has nothing to do with the issue. Besides, you took a poll before Roe vs. Wade, the consensus would have been that abortion was immoral, but now after Roe vs. Wade people would probably say it is not ideal, but OK. All this ...[text shortened]... t come round to wave her magic wand over the fetus as it comes out of the womb to make it human.
08 May 18
Originally posted by @wolfgang59The issue is abortion spanky
Are you against the use of inert IUDs?
08 May 18
Originally posted by @whodeyI am not talking about "the 9 black robes", I am asking you - not someone else - to answer this question: had you been an Iowa legislator, would you have voted for the new law, against it, or would you have abstained?
Ask the 9 black robes.
They have all the answers it seems.
Originally posted by @fmfMy stance on abortion is obvious.
I am not talking about "the 9 black robes", I am asking you - not someone else - to answer this question: had you been an Iowa legislator, would you have voted for the new law, against it, or would you have abstained?
Laws need to protect the unborn like they do you and I.
Trouble is, they have no voice, can't vote, and most importantly, don't have a dime to their name.
On top of that, you have the billion dollar abortion industry to fight.
08 May 18
Originally posted by @whodeyWhat would your vote have been in the Iowa legislature?
My stance on abortion is obvious.
Laws need to protect the unborn like they do you and I.
Trouble is, they have no voice, can't vote, and most importantly, don't have a dime to their name.
On top of that, you have the billion dollar abortion industry to fight.
09 May 18
Originally posted by @whodeyI'd give more credence to your anti-choice stand if only you showed more concern for these unwanted little ones after they are born.
My stance on abortion is obvious.
Laws need to protect the unborn like they do you and I.
Trouble is, they have no voice, can't vote, and most importantly, don't have a dime to their name.
On top of that, you have the billion dollar abortion industry to fight.
09 May 18
Originally posted by @suzianneWhat kinds of policies towards "unwanted" babies and children after they are born - if supported by whodey, would cause you to "give more credence" to the moral stance he takes over abortion?
I'd give more credence to your anti-choice stand if only you showed more concern for these unwanted little ones after they are born.
09 May 18
Originally posted by @fmfSorry, I don't converse with liars.
What kinds of policies towards "unwanted" babies and children after they are born - if supported by whodey, would cause you to "give more credence" to the moral stance he takes over abortion?
09 May 18
Originally posted by @suzianneThose that give most of their money and time to those in need are both conservative and faith based individuals.
I'd give more credence to your anti-choice stand if only you showed more concern for these unwanted little ones after they are born.
Conversely, Dims just sit around whining about wanting to elect people to force them to give more of their money to those in need, only, most of the increased taxes go elsewhere.
09 May 18
Originally posted by @whodeyYour first sentence needs work, since I see no evidence of what you say in reality. Conservatives are constantly bemoaning social programs as an unnecessary waste of money. Try living beneath the poverty line yourself and see if it, indeed, is a waste of money. And hey, guess what? Most of what you call "increased taxes" (I just call it "your fair share" ) DO go "elsewhere", only because conservatives are always cancelling social programs as an unnecessary waste of money.
Those that give most of their money and time to those in need are both conservative and faith based individuals.
Conversely, Dims just sit around whining about wanting to elect people to force them to give more of their money to those in need, only, most of the increased taxes go elsewhere.
Like I said, if you'd only put as much attention into children after they are born as you do attempting to curtail a woman's natural right to decisions affecting her own body, I might be inclined to listen to your constant whining about the funds involved.