Ben Carson: "No war on women, maybe a war on whats inside women"

PPH abortions are subsidized by taxpayer funds, and your lying-ass already admitted as much when you said all revenue going in mixes to support the whole operation, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The abortions are paid for by the patient. What happens to the money after that is a moot point. The procedure has been paid for by the patient. No tax money was used for that abortion.

Abortion is constitutional (NBK gets it right once in a while) but trafficking in human body parts is illegal, manipulating an abortiong for collection of an intact fetus is illegal, and in most states late term (partial birth) abortion is illegal. All three of these things have been demonstrated in the videos for PP.

So by NBK logic, self defense is constitutionally legal so that makes murder legal as well? I think you need to go back and rethink this. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

They have absolutely NOT been proven in those videos. Those videos have been proven to heavily edited. No one is trafficking in human body parts. If all you have is a heavily edited video as proof, you're on shaky ground.

As for your second little nugget, you're a fucking moron among morons. Self defense and murder are not the same thing. And where did I ever mention self defense? You brought up that straw man, dumbass. I know you like pulling shit out of your ass, but don't involve me in it.

The abortions are paid for by the patient. What happens to the money after that is a moot point. The procedure has been paid for by the patient. No tax money was used for that abortion. Originally Posted by WombRaider

You're a cock-sucking liar, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas, or PPH wouldn't need government subsidies to survive.

You're a cock-sucking liar, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas, or PPH wouldn't need government subsidies to survive.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

So let me get this straight; you would be ok with them increasing the number of abortions provided, so they could theoretically increase their bottom line and require no government assistance? Is that about right?

They have absolutely NOT been proven in those videos. Those videos have been proven to heavily edited. No one is trafficking in human body parts. If all you have is a heavily edited video as proof, you're on shaky ground.

As for your second little nugget, you're a fucking moron among morons. Self defense and murder are not the same thing. And where did I ever mention self defense? You brought up that straw man, dumbass. I know you like pulling shit out of your ass, but don't involve me in it. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Pretty big talk for someone who has not seen the videos but believes the White House (why are they involved?) spin about heavily doctored videos.

If someone makes a poor comparison everyone knows it. You reacted pretty strongly for something that you claim to be stupid. I think I struck a nerve which made you jump pretty high.

So to paraphrase what you said, if you use the White House defense then you're on pretty shaky ground.

So let me get this straight; you would be ok with them increasing the number of abortions provided, so they could theoretically increase their bottom line and require no government assistance? Is that about right? Originally Posted by WombRaider

Once again you show your appalling ignorance of simple economics. The loop works this way - cutting off taxpayer funding would force PP to raise the amount they charge for abortions, resulting in fewer of them being performed. Demand curves are downward sloping and demand for abortions is price-sensitive.

Schooled you again, sewer rat.
.

Pretty big talk for someone who has not seen the videos but believes the White House (why are they involved?) spin about heavily doctored videos. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

"Pretty big talk for someone who" actually believed the missing 777 was discreetly parked on a remote island and shielded from view by wilted shrubs and camouflaged netting material.

So let me get this straight; you would be ok with them increasing the number of abortions provided, so they could theoretically increase their bottom line and require no government assistance? Is that about right? Originally Posted by WombRaider

Let PPH try to survive w/o the taxpayer subsidizing their operation, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

The vast majority of young women have no clue what is inside them. This ignorance has been fed to them by our government and the Abortion Industry.

This is one reason that the Abortion Industry fights tooth and nail against any requirements that an abortionist show any pictures or depictions of what is actually going inside the womb.

Those most feared words to the abortionist would be, "that sure looks like a tiny baby". Originally Posted by Jackie S

This is typical of the hysteria on the RWWhite...

"Abortion industry?"

"abortionist?"

Hypocrite?????

Pretty big talk for someone who has not seen the videos but believes the White House (why are they involved?) spin about heavily doctored videos.

If someone makes a poor comparison everyone knows it. You reacted pretty strongly for something that you claim to be stupid. I think I struck a nerve which made you jump pretty high.

So to paraphrase what you said, if you use the White House defense then you're on pretty shaky ground. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I've seen the videos. The UNEDITED videos. They prove none of what you say. NONE. As for making me jump pretty high, I don't even know what the fuck you're talking about as your syntax is dreadfully poor.

Read and learn, it's not spin, homey. Every single one of these links discusses the editing of the videos to manipulate them in such a way as to paint a picture that simply isn't true. Of course you think a 777 was hidden by shrubs and shit, why would I ever expect you to respond to anything logical.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/uns...enthood-video/

http://www.latimes.com/business/hilt...28-column.html

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/28/9217323...d-tapes-edited

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08/...arenthood.html

http://www.thenation.com/article/for...ed-parenthood/

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/08...anipula/205216

Once again you show your appalling ignorance of simple economics. The loop works this way - cutting off taxpayer funding would force PP to raise the amount they charge for abortions, resulting in fewer of them being performed. Demand curves are downward sloping and demand for abortions is price-sensitive.

Schooled you again, sewer rat.
. Originally Posted by lustylad

You have displayed your ignorance once again by assuming the goal is to lower abortions. That may be your goal, but i'll let the market dictate. I made my statement with the contention they would be performing more, not less. Price sensitivity varies depending on product and consumer. You don't know the price elasticity demand of fucking abortions, you bloviating turd. Loop it around and put it in your ass, puto. Raising the price on abortions will simply force more women to either have a back alley abortion somewhere or to carry the baby to term and neglect them until they're 18 at which point the state will take over. Great plan, idiot. But by all means, keep telling me about economics when I thought you were concerned about lives. Fucking hypocrite.

You have displayed your ignorance once again by assuming the goal is to lower abortions. That may be your goal, but I'll let the market dictate. I made my statement with the contention they would be performing more, not less. Price sensitivity varies depending on product and consumer. You don't know the price elasticity demand of fucking abortions, you bloviating turd. Loop it around and put it in your ass, puto. Raising the price on abortions will simply force more women to either have a back alley abortion somewhere or to carry the baby to term and neglect them until they're 18 at which point the state will take over. Great plan, idiot. But by all means, keep telling me about economics when I thought you were concerned about lives. Fucking hypocrite. Originally Posted by WombRaider

How do you manage to be such a complete moronic jackass? Do you have to work at being this stupid or does it just come naturally to you?

If your goal is to "let the market dictate" that means you OPPOSE taxpayer funding or subsidies of any kind for PP! Did that big contradiction somehow escape your enfeebled brain? It is precisely BECAUSE I'm a free-market guy that my GOAL is to get the government the hell out of the abortion business. The fact that this would have the side-effect of reducing abortions by making them more expensive once their pricing is no longer being subsidized is something I will happily accept because yes, I am "concerned about lives." Aren't you?

Only a clueless fool (that means you, sewer rat) would suggest PP can create more demand for abortions out of thin air. It doesn't work that way, dickhead. The only thing you got right is I don't know the exact elasticity of demand for abortions, or the slope of the demand curve, if you will. But we can find out the answer to that one by pulling the plug on PP's taxpayer funding, can't we?

Schooled you again, sewer rat!
.

How do you manage to be such a complete moronic jackass? Do you have to work at being this stupid or does it just come naturally to you?

If your goal is to "let the market dictate" that means you OPPOSE taxpayer funding or subsidies of any kind for PP! Did that big contradiction somehow escape your enfeebled brain? It is precisely BECAUSE I'm a free-market guy that my GOAL is to get the government the hell out of the abortion business. The fact that this would have the side-effect of reducing abortions by making them more expensive once their pricing is no longer being subsidized is something I will happily accept because yes, I am "concerned about lives." Aren't you?

Only a clueless fool (that means you, sewer rat) would suggest PP can create more demand for abortions out of thin air. It doesn't work that way, dickhead. The only thing you got right is I don't know the exact elasticity of demand for abortions, or the slope of the demand curve, if you will. But we can find out the answer to that one by pulling the plug on PP's taxpayer funding, can't we?

Schooled you again, sewer rat!
. Originally Posted by lustylad

Goddamn, you are an insufferable turd. The government is not IN the abortion business. I never said they would create more demand for abortions, but if you want to do that, continue with your religious indoctrination of the youth, denying them sexual education and instead preaching abstinence. Why are the most religious states the ones with the highest teen birth rates? Is that a coincidence, shitbird? Or is it because you're against birth control. You're against education. You're against abortion. The only thing you're for is fucking abstinence, which is a fucking riot considering you're making this argument on a goddamn hooker board. I'm concerned with women having the right to make the choice of what happens to their bodies.

Schooled again, dumbass. The problem with you, lustytard, is you have no common sense. You always infer the wrong thing. You're basically a retard.

Goddamn, you are an insufferable turd. Everyone who rips apart your limp arguments and turns you into a laughingstock is "insufferable" to you, aren't they? The government is not IN the abortion business. No? Then why are they funding 40% of the annual budget of the nation's predominant abortion provider? I never said they would create more demand for abortions... You said "increasing the number of abortions provided" - which means somehow increasing demand since they already own the market. ...but if you want to do that, continue with your religious indoctrination of the youth, denying them sexual education and instead preaching abstinence. Why are the most religious states the ones with the highest teen birth rates? Is that a coincidence, shitbird? Or is it because you're against birth control. You're against education. You're against abortion. The only thing you're for is fucking abstinence, which is a fucking riot considering you're making this argument on a goddamn hooker board. Nice rant. Who is it directed at? I'm not against birth control or education, nor do I promote abstinence. You must have me confused with someone else. I'm concerned with women having the right to make the choice of what happens to their bodies. That talking point doesn't work if they wait too long - a whopping 84% of all Americans oppose 3rd-trimester abortions. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Schooled you again, sewer rat!
.