piisalie has commented here before, but not under that same handle. Anyway, here is where we are right now.
@piisalie $350 mil is only "absurdly small" if u r numb 2 what money like that rly means. It's not small. Would u like a $350 mil gift card?
@piisalie Wrt "war", you'll have to be more specific. Which war?
@piisalie Since PP is clearly OK with aiding major crimes like sex trafficking minors, "but they do good!" arguments don't interest me much.
1) piisalie @Rhology my point is, if you defund PP, it would spike, if not double or worsen the ab rate.
2) piisalie @Rhology They are not aiding in sex crimes, they first provide services to help. Didn't Jesus help prostitutes?
3) piisalie @Rhology that argument only makes sense if you are numb to what the fed budget is, or are unable to grasp large numbers.
4) piisalie @Rhology Any war that involves killing of innocents.
See what I mean? I'd like to continue here by responding to each. I've numbered them to keep them straight.
1) Defunding the largest abortion provider in the USA, thus driving up their costs (since they wouldn't be getting all those gov't subsidies) would raise the abortion rate?
a. What about all those ppl who like to remind us that PP is all about contraception and raising awareness? Wouldn't PP have to constrict, tighten its belt, in order to continue to offer its most important services, while trimming the fat? Or is it that, contrary to what we keep hearing from the PP apologists, abortions really are their stock and trade and their favorite activity? What happened to safe, legal, and rare? As far as I can tell, they and their ilk are only interested in the "legal" part of that triumvirate. So, if they stopped funding contraception and all that stuff and focused on abortions, seems to me that the blame would rest squarely on their shoulders, not on the shoulders of those calling for reform.
b. How does that work, economically speaking, if PP were indeed to cut its abortion offerings or raise the price? Does piisalie expect new abortuaries to spring up overnight to provide the spike he's warning of?
2) Clearly piisalie hasn't watched the videos and is thus just dealing in ignorance now. He truly needs to educate himself.
Yes, Jesus helped prostitutes. I admit I missed the part in His ministry where He aided and abetted those who were exploiting children as sex slaves, pimping out their sexual services for money, so it would be great if piisalie could point it out to me. Any translation of the Bible will suffice.
Also, he did not respond to my counterargument. Just b/c PP does some good things does not mean they should not be held accountable for the very bad things they've been shown to be doing and willing to do. I'd like to ask piisalie to consider that almost never is anyone wholly evil. Does he think Charles Manson never petted a dog or watered a plant or something? Something, yet that doesn't stop us from making decisions about whether ppl/groups are sufficiently evil to stop supporting them. I don't know if anyone would argue that aiding and abetting the sex trafficking of minors is not a big deal.
Rather, supporters of PP argue that that's not really how it went down. I think they're kidding themselves - the ppl on the vids said what they said, and why else fire some of the employees if they did everything like they were supposed to?
3) piisalie accuses me of losing sight of how small $350 million is, which is approximately how much PP received in taxpayer money last year. Since the new proposed US budget is over $3 trillion, how much difference does $350 million make?
It's amazing to hear liberals talk like that. I don't even know what to say, except to marvel at piisalie's amazing economic ignorance.
4) piisalie asked me earlier: @Rhology What of war? We have spent orders of magnitude more on war, do you oppose that?
Is piisalie aware of any war that does not involve killing innocents? What does that mean? This enforced brevity is one of Twitter's weaknesses, so hopefully piisalie can flesh out what he means in more detail here. Deliberately targeting innocents? Collateral damage, accidental involvement of innocents? How does he define innocent? Is whether innocents get caught in the crossfire sometimes his only measure of whether a war is justifiable?