L8erToots wrote:
If you're going to fight for your cause or debate your belief, do it with facts not emotional "you're going to kill more women" crap left over from the 1960's. Here's an example: taxpayer money ("funding of Planned Parenthood") does NOT pay for, or subsidize abortions. Period. In fact, former (oh how I love saying that word) President Obama signed an executive order to make SURE that taxpayer money, through Obamacare, didn't pay for abortions and it specifically stated that ANY medical facility that refused to perform abortions would NOT be penalized (funding wouldn't be withheld). Abortions are funded through donations from individuals or groups and frankly, if Pro-choice individuals really care about a woman's right to choose, then they should step up and donate to Planned Parenthood (and make sure to specify that their donation goes to the "medical", not "political" side of PP) and PP is just going to have to work harder at hitting up all those rich, celebrity feminists to pay up for what they believe in. I apologize if my comment comes across as bitchy, but I just get SO frustrated with uninformed, indignant people and uninformed, emotional people fighting without knowing the facts...it does not HELP either side and in fact HURTS the Pro-Choice side (and the facts actually piss off the pro-life side because it makes them realize that even IF the govt stops funding PP, private donations will still make sure abortions are available, just like they always have been).
If you're going to fight for your cause or debate ... (
show quote)
So if I need to show facts that prior to RvW women were having abortions and dying from them? That was the entire argument behind RvW. As for eliminating any government funding that still won't eliminate abortions. Women who don't want to have babies won't have them. As for emotions I have yet to use the picture of an aborted fetus as an argument against abortions. Talk to us about being emotional when the right stops using emotion as a principle argument. A woman having the right to do with her body as she chooses isn't an emotional argument but as about as factual and straight forward as you can get. Granting rights to a fetus that isn't even viable though and shedding tears because SCOUTS won't grant them the rights, is more then a bit emotional--you guys come close to hysteria. SCOTUS says the right to life doesn't exist for a fetus until it becomes viable--and even then is it doesn't pose a health risk for the mother. That's the Rule of Law and I see no reason to get emotional about it. Do you?