Someone explain what the republicans are doing?

[squeak]

You can be pro-life and for planned parenthood. What is the end game? Please help me.

 

[JimmyBob]

A simple answer:

 

[aix_xpert]

You can be pro-life and for planned parenthood. What is the end game? Please help me.

Not in today's world of absolutes. It's irrelevant that Planned parenthood provides many beneficial women's health services particularly for the poor. But since they participate in abortions, they are evil and must be destroyed.

 

[JimmyBob]

Not in today's world of absolutes. It's irrelevant that Planned parenthood provides many beneficial women's health services particularly for the poor. But since they participate in abortions, they are evil and must be destroyed.

Yep, a class organization if there ever was one:

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...mail&utm_campaign=Jolt 1/6/2016&utm_term=Jolt

 

[TPOKE]

We had a local Republican candidate in the last election who touted that personally she was pro life, but she didn't feel it was her right to tell a woman what to do with her body. So basically she was pro-choice.

 

[imprimis]

Yep, a class organization if there ever was one:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443607/planned-parenthood-house-report-revelations?utm_source=jolt&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Jolt 1/6/2016&utm_term=Jolt

Interesting article but will be labeled as fake news. Politicians wrote the laws with the obligatory rules against abuses but then gave a wink and a nod to the providers to do as they wanted. It's like most government regulators/agencies---dot your "i's" and cross your "t's" on the paperwork to make it look on the up and up (to cover the investigator's butt). Then do as you please. If it does get reigned in the outcry will be enormous.

 

[hollywood]

We had a local Republican candidate in the last election who touted that personally she was pro life, but she didn't feel it was her right to tell a woman what to do with her body. So basically she was pro-choice.

Why is that hard to understand? There's probably lots of things you don't want to personally participate or engage in, but you can simultaneously hold the position that you don't have the right to stop others from doing so. Someone, for instance, hold a personal conviction that porn is evil and abhorrent, while simultaneously recognizing that they don't have the right to infringe everyone else's 1st Amendment right to read and view what they want.

I honestly have never seen the dichotomy in holding that position.

 

[AC_Exotic]

We had a local Republican candidate in the last election who touted that personally she was pro life, but she didn't feel it was her right to tell a woman what to do with her body. So basically she was pro-choice.

That was Bill Clinton's line when he first ran for President in 1992.

 

[GoPokes43]

Why is that hard to understand? There's probably lots of things you don't want to personally participate or engage in, but you can simultaneously hold the position that you don't have the right to stop others from doing so. Someone, for instance, hold a personal conviction that porn is evil and abhorrent, while simultaneously recognizing that they don't have the right to infringe everyone else's 1st Amendment right to read and view what they want.

I honestly have never seen the dichotomy in holding that position.

I hold a personal conviction that killing liberal college students is evil and abhorrent, but I won't infringe on any else's right to do it.

 

[squeak]

I don't think we need to throw the baby out with the bath water...no pun intended.

 

[TPOKE]

Why is that hard to understand? There's probably lots of things you don't want to personally participate or engage in, but you can simultaneously hold the position that you don't have the right to stop others from doing so. Someone, for instance, hold a personal conviction that porn is evil and abhorrent, while simultaneously recognizing that they don't have the right to infringe everyone else's 1st Amendment right to read and view what they want.

I honestly have never seen the dichotomy in holding that position.

Actually it's deeper than a person's rights. You're either for or against abortion, not whether you care what a person does with their body.

 

[imprimis]

Actually it's deeper than a person's rights. You're either for or against abortion, not whether you care what a person does with their body.

My position starts and ends with the government (my taxes) paying for abortions or gender replacement/substitution surgery too. The government should not pay for any of this.