Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Clinton's Hypocrisy on Animal Rights

RookieApologist
Posts: 469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 6:07:59 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
http://www.dailywire.com...

"The relative life value placed upon animals versus unborn human beings by Democrats is truly shocking. These are people who will weep over the death of Harambe and Cecil (both of whom would make better presidential candidates than the current major party nominees) but will brush off the killing of 20-week-old babies as "woman"s choice."
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 6:19:19 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/5/2016 6:07:59 PM, RookieApologist wrote:
http://www.dailywire.com...

"The relative life value placed upon animals versus unborn human beings by Democrats is truly shocking. These are people who will weep over the death of Harambe and Cecil (both of whom would make better presidential candidates than the current major party nominees) but will brush off the killing of 20-week-old babies as "woman"s choice."

Liberals are what we call "self righteous". They do things and say things to be perceived as "moral", but at the end of the day...

They'll slit your throat and become cannibalistic.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 6:26:40 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/5/2016 6:07:59 PM, RookieApologist wrote:
http://www.dailywire.com...

"The relative life value placed upon animals versus unborn human beings by Democrats is truly shocking. These are people who will weep over the death of Harambe and Cecil (both of whom would make better presidential candidates than the current major party nominees) but will brush off the killing of 20-week-old babies as "woman"s choice."

Animal rights and abortion are not even remotely comparable. Trying to somehow equate them to show hypocrisy is dishonest. Regardless, progressives and liberals are much more practical with regard to reducing the number of abortions in this country than anyone on the religious right. If you want to bring down the incidences of abortion, you really just need to prevent unwanted pregnancies. That's done through honest, comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraceptives. Attacking or eliminating organizations like Planned Parenthood will do nothing to change the number of abortions that occur. Really, it wouldn't surprise me if they increase.
RookieApologist
Posts: 469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 6:32:18 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/5/2016 6:26:40 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/5/2016 6:07:59 PM, RookieApologist wrote:
http://www.dailywire.com...

"The relative life value placed upon animals versus unborn human beings by Democrats is truly shocking. These are people who will weep over the death of Harambe and Cecil (both of whom would make better presidential candidates than the current major party nominees) but will brush off the killing of 20-week-old babies as "woman"s choice."

Animal rights and abortion are not even remotely comparable. Trying to somehow equate them to show hypocrisy is dishonest. Regardless, progressives and liberals are much more practical with regard to reducing the number of abortions in this country than anyone on the religious right. If you want to bring down the incidences of abortion, you really just need to prevent unwanted pregnancies. That's done through honest, comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraceptives. Attacking or eliminating organizations like Planned Parenthood will do nothing to change the number of abortions that occur. Really, it wouldn't surprise me if they increase.

Well I dunno, I think humans are part of the animal kingdom last I checked. The hypocrisy is in the democratic value of animal rights over the value of human rights, not to mention the value of minority and women's rights - which make up a large portion of babies killed by Planned Parenthood.

Also - I don't necessarily propose to eliminate Planned Parenthood, just the abortion aspect of it, as well as the federal funding of it with tax dollars that would be better spent elsewhere, such as in lowering crime in inner cities.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 6:53:16 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/5/2016 6:32:18 PM, RookieApologist wrote:
At 8/5/2016 6:26:40 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/5/2016 6:07:59 PM, RookieApologist wrote:
http://www.dailywire.com...

"The relative life value placed upon animals versus unborn human beings by Democrats is truly shocking. These are people who will weep over the death of Harambe and Cecil (both of whom would make better presidential candidates than the current major party nominees) but will brush off the killing of 20-week-old babies as "woman"s choice."

Animal rights and abortion are not even remotely comparable. Trying to somehow equate them to show hypocrisy is dishonest. Regardless, progressives and liberals are much more practical with regard to reducing the number of abortions in this country than anyone on the religious right. If you want to bring down the incidences of abortion, you really just need to prevent unwanted pregnancies. That's done through honest, comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraceptives. Attacking or eliminating organizations like Planned Parenthood will do nothing to change the number of abortions that occur. Really, it wouldn't surprise me if they increase.

Well I dunno, I think humans are part of the animal kingdom last I checked. The hypocrisy is in the democratic value of animal rights over the value of human rights, not to mention the value of minority and women's rights - which make up a large portion of babies killed by Planned Parenthood.

You're still equivocating with that first sentence. Do you have a problem with all of the animals aborted in the food industry? If you're going to try to honestly rope human treatment into that group, you really aren't going to like the results. And trying to frame anti-abortion sentiment as being pro minority and women's rights is just laughable. Those are the two groups most negatively affected by the anti-abortion crowd's policies.

Also - I don't necessarily propose to eliminate Planned Parenthood, just the abortion aspect of it, as well as the federal funding of it with tax dollars that would be better spent elsewhere, such as in lowering crime in inner cities.

Out of curiosity, are you also for reducing our funding to Israel, since they offer free abortions to women 20 to 33 years of age, at all stages of pregnancy?

http://www.haaretz.com...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 8:32:54 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/5/2016 6:53:16 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/5/2016 6:32:18 PM, RookieApologist wrote:
At 8/5/2016 6:26:40 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/5/2016 6:07:59 PM, RookieApologist wrote:
http://www.dailywire.com...

"The relative life value placed upon animals versus unborn human beings by Democrats is truly shocking. These are people who will weep over the death of Harambe and Cecil (both of whom would make better presidential candidates than the current major party nominees) but will brush off the killing of 20-week-old babies as "woman"s choice."

Animal rights and abortion are not even remotely comparable. Trying to somehow equate them to show hypocrisy is dishonest. Regardless, progressives and liberals are much more practical with regard to reducing the number of abortions in this country than anyone on the religious right. If you want to bring down the incidences of abortion, you really just need to prevent unwanted pregnancies. That's done through honest, comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraceptives. Attacking or eliminating organizations like Planned Parenthood will do nothing to change the number of abortions that occur. Really, it wouldn't surprise me if they increase.

Well I dunno, I think humans are part of the animal kingdom last I checked. The hypocrisy is in the democratic value of animal rights over the value of human rights, not to mention the value of minority and women's rights - which make up a large portion of babies killed by Planned Parenthood.

You're still equivocating with that first sentence. Do you have a problem with all of the animals aborted in the food industry? If you're going to try to honestly rope human treatment into that group, you really aren't going to like the results. And trying to frame anti-abortion sentiment as being pro minority and women's rights is just laughable. Those are the two groups most negatively affected by the anti-abortion crowd's policies.

Also - I don't necessarily propose to eliminate Planned Parenthood, just the abortion aspect of it, as well as the federal funding of it with tax dollars that would be better spent elsewhere, such as in lowering crime in inner cities.

Out of curiosity, are you also for reducing our funding to Israel, since they offer free abortions to women 20 to 33 years of age, at all stages of pregnancy?

http://www.haaretz.com...

We need to take care of America. It's not our job to take care of the world, only our own nation, just like everyone else. Why do we need to fit the bill for other nations who pay us or provide us nothing? Vote Trump for god's sake.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 8:37:04 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/5/2016 8:32:54 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 8/5/2016 6:53:16 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/5/2016 6:32:18 PM, RookieApologist wrote:
At 8/5/2016 6:26:40 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/5/2016 6:07:59 PM, RookieApologist wrote:
http://www.dailywire.com...

"The relative life value placed upon animals versus unborn human beings by Democrats is truly shocking. These are people who will weep over the death of Harambe and Cecil (both of whom would make better presidential candidates than the current major party nominees) but will brush off the killing of 20-week-old babies as "woman"s choice."

Animal rights and abortion are not even remotely comparable. Trying to somehow equate them to show hypocrisy is dishonest. Regardless, progressives and liberals are much more practical with regard to reducing the number of abortions in this country than anyone on the religious right. If you want to bring down the incidences of abortion, you really just need to prevent unwanted pregnancies. That's done through honest, comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraceptives. Attacking or eliminating organizations like Planned Parenthood will do nothing to change the number of abortions that occur. Really, it wouldn't surprise me if they increase.

Well I dunno, I think humans are part of the animal kingdom last I checked. The hypocrisy is in the democratic value of animal rights over the value of human rights, not to mention the value of minority and women's rights - which make up a large portion of babies killed by Planned Parenthood.

You're still equivocating with that first sentence. Do you have a problem with all of the animals aborted in the food industry? If you're going to try to honestly rope human treatment into that group, you really aren't going to like the results. And trying to frame anti-abortion sentiment as being pro minority and women's rights is just laughable. Those are the two groups most negatively affected by the anti-abortion crowd's policies.

Also - I don't necessarily propose to eliminate Planned Parenthood, just the abortion aspect of it, as well as the federal funding of it with tax dollars that would be better spent elsewhere, such as in lowering crime in inner cities.

Out of curiosity, are you also for reducing our funding to Israel, since they offer free abortions to women 20 to 33 years of age, at all stages of pregnancy?

http://www.haaretz.com...

We need to take care of America. It's not our job to take care of the world, only our own nation, just like everyone else. Why do we need to fit the bill for other nations who pay us or provide us nothing? Vote Trump for god's sake.

Which god?
RookieApologist
Posts: 469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 1:20:42 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/5/2016 6:53:16 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/5/2016 6:32:18 PM, RookieApologist wrote:
At 8/5/2016 6:26:40 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/5/2016 6:07:59 PM, RookieApologist wrote:
http://www.dailywire.com...

"The relative life value placed upon animals versus unborn human beings by Democrats is truly shocking. These are people who will weep over the death of Harambe and Cecil (both of whom would make better presidential candidates than the current major party nominees) but will brush off the killing of 20-week-old babies as "woman"s choice."

Animal rights and abortion are not even remotely comparable. Trying to somehow equate them to show hypocrisy is dishonest. Regardless, progressives and liberals are much more practical with regard to reducing the number of abortions in this country than anyone on the religious right. If you want to bring down the incidences of abortion, you really just need to prevent unwanted pregnancies. That's done through honest, comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraceptives. Attacking or eliminating organizations like Planned Parenthood will do nothing to change the number of abortions that occur. Really, it wouldn't surprise me if they increase.

Well I dunno, I think humans are part of the animal kingdom last I checked. The hypocrisy is in the democratic value of animal rights over the value of human rights, not to mention the value of minority and women's rights - which make up a large portion of babies killed by Planned Parenthood.

You're still equivocating with that first sentence. Do you have a problem with all of the animals aborted in the food industry? If you're going to try to honestly rope human treatment into that group, you really aren't going to like the results. And trying to frame anti-abortion sentiment as being pro minority and women's rights is just laughable. Those are the two groups most negatively affected by the anti-abortion crowd's policies.

Also - I don't necessarily propose to eliminate Planned Parenthood, just the abortion aspect of it, as well as the federal funding of it with tax dollars that would be better spent elsewhere, such as in lowering crime in inner cities.

Out of curiosity, are you also for reducing our funding to Israel, since they offer free abortions to women 20 to 33 years of age, at all stages of pregnancy?

http://www.haaretz.com...

The point again is that Clinton is fine with killing thousands of babies, the majority of which are either female or minority, but throws a fit when someone goes big game hunting. If you can't see the irony, I'm sorry I can't help you.

As to the Israel question, perhaps so, as that is the first time I've heard that.
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 4:08:34 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/5/2016 6:07:59 PM, RookieApologist wrote:
http://www.dailywire.com...

"The relative life value placed upon animals versus unborn human beings by Democrats is truly shocking. These are people who will weep over the death of Harambe and Cecil (both of whom would make better presidential candidates than the current major party nominees) but will brush off the killing of 20-week-old babies as "woman"s choice."

lol

Animals are sentient. Fetuses are not.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2016 4:20:35 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Left to right: You oppose women's 'rights' to abortion, yet you're all for torturing animals! How hypocritical!
Right to left: You're fine with killing human babies, and yet you claim to be protecting animals! How hypocritical!

Replacing the animal rights issue with the death penalty one works as well.

Seriously though... all three are morally reprehensible, and just societies should ban them. It's important not to be bound by ideology and partisan biases when it comes to moral issues as important as these.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
RookieApologist
Posts: 469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2016 12:16:53 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/6/2016 4:20:35 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
Left to right: You oppose women's 'rights' to abortion, yet you're all for torturing animals! How hypocritical!
Right to left: You're fine with killing human babies, and yet you claim to be protecting animals! How hypocritical!

Replacing the animal rights issue with the death penalty one works as well.

Seriously though... all three are morally reprehensible, and just societies should ban them. It's important not to be bound by ideology and partisan biases when it comes to moral issues as important as these.

To be fair, I wasn't equating killing animals and killing babies. I was merely pointing out the irony in arguing against big game hunting while one is fine with abortion. And to be fair again, I don't think animals or babies are "tortured" in any of these cases.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2016 2:41:14 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/8/2016 12:16:53 PM, RookieApologist wrote:
At 8/6/2016 4:20:35 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
Left to right: You oppose women's 'rights' to abortion, yet you're all for torturing animals! How hypocritical!
Right to left: You're fine with killing human babies, and yet you claim to be protecting animals! How hypocritical!

Replacing the animal rights issue with the death penalty one works as well.

Seriously though... all three are morally reprehensible, and just societies should ban them. It's important not to be bound by ideology and partisan biases when it comes to moral issues as important as these.

To be fair, I wasn't equating killing animals and killing babies. I was merely pointing out the irony in arguing against big game hunting while one is fine with abortion. And to be fair again, I don't think animals or babies are "tortured" in any of these cases.

My post wasn't really specifically directed at yours... I just wanted to point out that there is irony on both sides of the debate, not just one :P
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
RookieApologist
Posts: 469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2016 2:56:15 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/8/2016 2:41:14 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 8/8/2016 12:16:53 PM, RookieApologist wrote:
At 8/6/2016 4:20:35 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
Left to right: You oppose women's 'rights' to abortion, yet you're all for torturing animals! How hypocritical!
Right to left: You're fine with killing human babies, and yet you claim to be protecting animals! How hypocritical!

Replacing the animal rights issue with the death penalty one works as well.

Seriously though... all three are morally reprehensible, and just societies should ban them. It's important not to be bound by ideology and partisan biases when it comes to moral issues as important as these.

To be fair, I wasn't equating killing animals and killing babies. I was merely pointing out the irony in arguing against big game hunting while one is fine with abortion. And to be fair again, I don't think animals or babies are "tortured" in any of these cases.

My post wasn't really specifically directed at yours... I just wanted to point out that there is irony on both sides of the debate, not just one :P

I agree. You just said something about "torturing" animals, and I don't think anyone is claiming that is going on, at least not to a significant degree.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2016 3:34:56 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/8/2016 2:56:15 PM, RookieApologist wrote:
At 8/8/2016 2:41:14 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 8/8/2016 12:16:53 PM, RookieApologist wrote:
At 8/6/2016 4:20:35 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
Left to right: You oppose women's 'rights' to abortion, yet you're all for torturing animals! How hypocritical!
Right to left: You're fine with killing human babies, and yet you claim to be protecting animals! How hypocritical!

Replacing the animal rights issue with the death penalty one works as well.

Seriously though... all three are morally reprehensible, and just societies should ban them. It's important not to be bound by ideology and partisan biases when it comes to moral issues as important as these.

To be fair, I wasn't equating killing animals and killing babies. I was merely pointing out the irony in arguing against big game hunting while one is fine with abortion. And to be fair again, I don't think animals or babies are "tortured" in any of these cases.

My post wasn't really specifically directed at yours... I just wanted to point out that there is irony on both sides of the debate, not just one :P

I agree. You just said something about "torturing" animals, and I don't think anyone is claiming that is going on, at least not to a significant degree.

I was exaggerating a bit for effect (though there have certainly been users on DDO who believe there is nothing wrong with torturing animals). Sorry if I sounded like I was twisting the facts or something.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2016 6:12:34 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/6/2016 1:20:42 AM, RookieApologist wrote:
At 8/5/2016 6:53:16 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/5/2016 6:32:18 PM, RookieApologist wrote:
At 8/5/2016 6:26:40 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/5/2016 6:07:59 PM, RookieApologist wrote:
http://www.dailywire.com...

"The relative life value placed upon animals versus unborn human beings by Democrats is truly shocking. These are people who will weep over the death of Harambe and Cecil (both of whom would make better presidential candidates than the current major party nominees) but will brush off the killing of 20-week-old babies as "woman"s choice."

Animal rights and abortion are not even remotely comparable. Trying to somehow equate them to show hypocrisy is dishonest. Regardless, progressives and liberals are much more practical with regard to reducing the number of abortions in this country than anyone on the religious right. If you want to bring down the incidences of abortion, you really just need to prevent unwanted pregnancies. That's done through honest, comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraceptives. Attacking or eliminating organizations like Planned Parenthood will do nothing to change the number of abortions that occur. Really, it wouldn't surprise me if they increase.

Well I dunno, I think humans are part of the animal kingdom last I checked. The hypocrisy is in the democratic value of animal rights over the value of human rights, not to mention the value of minority and women's rights - which make up a large portion of babies killed by Planned Parenthood.

You're still equivocating with that first sentence. Do you have a problem with all of the animals aborted in the food industry? If you're going to try to honestly rope human treatment into that group, you really aren't going to like the results. And trying to frame anti-abortion sentiment as being pro minority and women's rights is just laughable. Those are the two groups most negatively affected by the anti-abortion crowd's policies.

Also - I don't necessarily propose to eliminate Planned Parenthood, just the abortion aspect of it, as well as the federal funding of it with tax dollars that would be better spent elsewhere, such as in lowering crime in inner cities.

Out of curiosity, are you also for reducing our funding to Israel, since they offer free abortions to women 20 to 33 years of age, at all stages of pregnancy?

http://www.haaretz.com...

The point again is that Clinton is fine with killing thousands of babies, the majority of which are either female or minority, but throws a fit when someone goes big game hunting. If you can't see the irony, I'm sorry I can't help you.

By equating two things that are clearly different. And when has Clinton said she's fine with killing thousands of babies? Supporting the choice isn't the same as supporting the need or desire for the procedure.

As to the Israel question, perhaps so, as that is the first time I've heard that.

Is there some distinction between the two that is giving you pause? Seems pretty straightforward. Taxpayer money to PP enables abortions. Taxpayer money to Israel enables abortions. What leads you to be against one but not the other?
RookieApologist
Posts: 469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2016 6:54:44 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/8/2016 6:12:34 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/6/2016 1:20:42 AM, RookieApologist wrote:
At 8/5/2016 6:53:16 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/5/2016 6:32:18 PM, RookieApologist wrote:
At 8/5/2016 6:26:40 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/5/2016 6:07:59 PM, RookieApologist wrote:
http://www.dailywire.com...

"The relative life value placed upon animals versus unborn human beings by Democrats is truly shocking. These are people who will weep over the death of Harambe and Cecil (both of whom would make better presidential candidates than the current major party nominees) but will brush off the killing of 20-week-old babies as "woman"s choice."

Animal rights and abortion are not even remotely comparable. Trying to somehow equate them to show hypocrisy is dishonest. Regardless, progressives and liberals are much more practical with regard to reducing the number of abortions in this country than anyone on the religious right. If you want to bring down the incidences of abortion, you really just need to prevent unwanted pregnancies. That's done through honest, comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraceptives. Attacking or eliminating organizations like Planned Parenthood will do nothing to change the number of abortions that occur. Really, it wouldn't surprise me if they increase.

Well I dunno, I think humans are part of the animal kingdom last I checked. The hypocrisy is in the democratic value of animal rights over the value of human rights, not to mention the value of minority and women's rights - which make up a large portion of babies killed by Planned Parenthood.

You're still equivocating with that first sentence. Do you have a problem with all of the animals aborted in the food industry? If you're going to try to honestly rope human treatment into that group, you really aren't going to like the results. And trying to frame anti-abortion sentiment as being pro minority and women's rights is just laughable. Those are the two groups most negatively affected by the anti-abortion crowd's policies.

Also - I don't necessarily propose to eliminate Planned Parenthood, just the abortion aspect of it, as well as the federal funding of it with tax dollars that would be better spent elsewhere, such as in lowering crime in inner cities.

Out of curiosity, are you also for reducing our funding to Israel, since they offer free abortions to women 20 to 33 years of age, at all stages of pregnancy?

http://www.haaretz.com...

The point again is that Clinton is fine with killing thousands of babies, the majority of which are either female or minority, but throws a fit when someone goes big game hunting. If you can't see the irony, I'm sorry I can't help you.

By equating two things that are clearly different. And when has Clinton said she's fine with killing thousands of babies? Supporting the choice isn't the same as supporting the need or desire for the procedure.

As to the Israel question, perhaps so, as that is the first time I've heard that.

Is there some distinction between the two that is giving you pause? Seems pretty straightforward. Taxpayer money to PP enables abortions. Taxpayer money to Israel enables abortions. What leads you to be against one but not the other?

I would stop taxpayer funding that goes towards supporting abortions. Planned Parenthood is a private organization and should not receive government funding regardless of abortion policies. Israel is a historically necessary military ally (we can debate this later if you wish), and while I would not support taxpayer money that helps them with abortion policies,, I would still support them as a military ally. I don't support a lot of Saudi Arabia's policies either, but their military support is still necessary, which makes taxpayer supporting them necessary...or at least ok in my mind.