Current Events > "socially liberal, fiscally conservative"

(+) Yeah! (+)

Lord_Shadow_19 posted...

I'm talking about a specific instance where the girl in question is not in any kind of medical danger and is seeking an abortion solely on the basis that she simply does not want the baby.

Again:

TheOtherMike posted...

Violating HIPAA to own the libs.

Since you're apparently incapable of figuring it out, I'll just spell it out for you. Probing that information is illegal.

Lord_Shadow_19 posted...

I think this one is fair depending on the reason for the abortion.

abortion because your life is endangered, fine.

abortion because you were raped and don't want to have the kid, fine.

abortion because you simply made a bad decision, not my problem.

your house on fire? Not my problem

Lord_Shadow_19 posted...

I'm talking about a specific instance where the girl in question is not in any kind of medical danger and is seeking an abortion solely on the basis that she simply does not want the baby. Oh, and lets also say the girl is an adult and not a teenager, obviously.

Do I think she should be allowed to do this: absolutely.

Do I think I should have foot the bill in this instance: No

Why do you think foster care is free?

TheOtherMike posted...

Again:

Since you're apparently incapable of figuring it out, I'll just spell it out for you. Probing that information is illegal.

Again:

I'm talking about a specific instance where the girl in question is not in any kind of medical danger and is seeking an abortion solely on the basis that she simply does not want the baby.

In other words, the doctor already knows she is there for an abortion that isn't a medical emergency.

You responded to me like 4 times and you didn't even know of the situation I was talking about?

---

Lord_Shadow_19 posted...

Again:

In other words, the doctor already knows she is there for an abortion that isn't a medical emergency.

This literally changes nothing. Why do you think any of this is relevant?

Friendly reminder... lord_shadow19 was one of the more vocal pro-trump people on the maga board and was extremely prone to trolling and shitposting... assuming that's who is causing invisible posts...
---

@Lord_Shadow_19
You believe that welfare queens are a major problem, as I recall. I could be wrong, but either way:
Lower class people are more prone to these accidents, and it's a lot cheaper to nip that issue in the bud than it is to fund a growing, living human.

---

TheOtherMike posted...

This literally changes nothing. Why do you think any of this is relevant?

Nah, we're done, you're obviously trolling at this point and I should have seen it earlier, good on you though, you got me.

Guide posted...

@Lord_Shadow_19
You believe that welfare queens are a major problem, as I recall. I could be wrong, but either way:
Lower class people are more prone to these accidents, and it's a lot cheaper to nip that issue in the bud than it is to fund a growing, living human.

1) I don't think I've ever had a conversation on this site about "welfare queens" so I don't even know where that is coming from.

2) Lower class people being more prone to accidents is something entirely different than what we've been talking about here and to be quite honest is a disingenuous comparison to the abortion example I've been using (if your intent is to compare it to that). There's a clear difference between say a guy accidentally falling off a ladder and breaking some bones (or worse) and a 20 something year old woman who got drunk, made some dumb decisions, and decided to "take care of it" when she found out she was pregnant.

Again, we aren't talking about someone with a medical emergency, we are talking about someone who is perfectly fine and simply doesn't feel like having the kid because she simply doesn't want it. I honestly getting a little tired of repeating myself here, but while I still she should be entitled to her abortion, it just shouldn't be on my dime because you didn't NEED to have an abortion, you merely WANTED to.

---

Lord_Shadow_19 posted...

Again:

In other words, the doctor already knows she is there for an abortion that isn't a medical emergency.

You responded to me like 4 times and you didn't even know of the situation I was talking about?

Ok but you said you're ok with the abortion due to rape, so in that instance there is no difference between the rape abortion and the abortion from someone "fixing their mistake" and the doctor is not allowed to ask which is which so you're making a meaningless distinction that cannot be distinguished.

---

Lord_Shadow_19 posted...

Nah, we're done, you're obviously trolling at this point and I should have seen it earlier, good on you though, you got me.

So you're stupid. Got it.

TheOtherMike posted...

So you're stupid. Got it.

Nah, it's just I've repeated myself at least 4 times now and you've seemingly failed to understand me. And when I looked back and saw your "to own the libs remark" I realized you've been trolling this whole time and I failed to notice. So even though you'll keep responding anyway, I congratulate you on a trolling well done and good day.

---

Vicious_Dios posted...

Hmm, glad that I don't have that problem.

"socially conservative, fiscally conservative"

Ahhh, much better.

You mean fiscally conservative when a Democrats in office?
As oppossed to saying nothing when Trump ballooned the deficit massively by giving huge and uneccessary tax cuts to the richest 1% and corporations.

Conservative = Hypocrite.

^Now that's much better.

Lord_Shadow_19 posted...

Again, we aren't talking about someone with a medical emergency, we are talking about someone who is perfectly fine and simply doesn't feel like having the kid because she simply doesn't want it.

So abortions for rape or incest don't happen then?
Sit down man.

JACKBUTTMOMMY posted...

low taxes, reduced government spending and minimal government

This is an oxymoron.
---

Lord_Shadow_19 posted...

Nah, it's just I've repeated myself at least 4 times now and you've seemingly failed to understand me.

I understand you perfectly. You are either incapable of or refuse to understand that what you keep repeating is 100% irrelevant. It doesn't matter that "it's not a medical emergency." It doesn't matter why she's seeking an abortion. It is illegal for that doctor to disclose that information to anyone, therefore there's no way to regulate who does or doesn't receive government assistance for abortions.

I pretty much can't take anyone who doesn't want to raise taxes seriously

---

Lord_Shadow_19 posted...

it just shouldn't be on my dime because you didn't NEED to have an abortion, you merely WANTED to.

I get it, but strictly speaking, if she can't afford it the abortion, she's not going to be able to afford the kid, and that take more tax money. Of course, I believe anyone who can afford it should pay for it.

---

---

Balrog0 posted...

I pretty much can't take anyone who doesn't want to raise taxes seriously

There's still some blissful ignorance that "we want these things, and that guy is going to pay for it!" is actually viable.

Everyone is going has pay for those things. That guy only pays a bit more of it.

CalypsoDoom posted...

you do know that your taxes legally can't fund abortions right

But damn wouldn't it be cool if they did


---

CalypsoDoom posted...

you do know that your taxes legally can't fund abortions right

Ectopic termination is covered, give or take maybe a few especially dickish states that I'm not aware of.

CalypsoDoom posted...

you do know that your taxes legally can't fund abortions right

That user got suspended for shitposting about how he doesn't believe in slurs
---

CalypsoDoom posted...

talking about elective abortions that lack medical necessity

"Elective" being the operant word here. Very few elective procedures are covered by any 3rd-party payer.

CalypsoDoom posted...

all I'm saying is that it's stupid to react like that to something that isn't even legal lmao

You are aware that this is CE, right?

Jiek_Fafn posted...

Agreed
Socially conservative and fiscally liberal is where it's at.

I think this guy is on to something here.

CalypsoDoom posted...

yes but for a board full of people that claim to be so educated and will "well actually" anyone to death they sure seem to not know how to find basic info

Again, CE.

Esrac posted...

I think this guy is on to something here.

---

JACKBUTTMOMMY posted...

harley2280 posted...

This is an oxymoron.

How so? All reduce government.

Reducing taxes will inevitably lead to an increase in debt even with reducing spending. Spending doesn't need to be reduced either. It needs better allocation and management. Money needs to be put towards investments that lead towards a greater GDP. Things like education, healthcare, public transit.

Conservative in spending doesn't mean "less gubbment". Having to bail out corporations repeatedly is going to cost more than putting regulations in place that stop them from becoming "too big to fail".
---

harley2280 posted...

Having to bail out corporations repeatedly is going to cost more than putting regulations in place that stop them from becoming "too big to fail".

Or just, you know, let them fail.

Questionmarktarius posted...

harley2280 posted...

Having to bail out corporations repeatedly is going to cost more than putting regulations in place that stop them from becoming "too big to fail".

Or just, you know, let them fail.

Costs more in the long run.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Or just, you know, let them fail.

So you want severe economic depressions every couple decades?

JACKBUTTMOMMY posted...

Tbqh I want true anarchy. I know you werent asking me, though.

I find that funny with the Animal Crossing sig... the true anarchy

---

TheOtherMike posted...

So you want severe economic depressions every couple decades?

I think you may have the causality backwards here.
The collapse of Lehman Bros. wasn't all that different from the collapse of Radio Shack.

Questionmarktarius posted...

I think you may have the causality backwards here.

Not at all.