In this case it is useless to discuss abortion (rights) when a poster doesn't know the difference between rights and the governments responsibility to care for it's citizens. It also is clear proof that Anti-Choicers ONLY care about a fetus ...once that precious life is born they do NOT care and it's NOT precious. Thank you for once again proving that with Anti-Choicers it is ONLY about controlling and punishing women.. ....good thing that when these children need help the government takes YOUR MONEY and helps them Among all the MANY questions that you didn't answer here's one of my favorites and says the most by you not answering or addressing it. BTW, have you provided all the following by yourself? ... elementary education or streets/highways, water systems, sewer systems, , the court systems or public buildings ,being defended by our military, Why not? Can't you accept personal responsibility ?
I don't support women murdering the what they created knowing that spreading their legs could produce that result whether it was the intended one or not. I'm all for holding the sperm donor accountable. I addressed that. I also support if you're going to hold him accountable that he have a say in the choice. It's not my place to support the child for several reasons. First, I didn't take part in creating it. Secondly, if the woman who claims to have the sole choice what she does with her body tells me to butt out of the choice for that reason, don't bring me back in when you figure out you can't afford that choice. If SHE chooses, it only makes sense that SHE pay the price for that choice. Unless you agree, what you're supporting is irresponsibility. And people wonder why those that can't afford children continue to have them. Why wouldn't they. People like you don't expect them to pay for what they do.
How about those making the choices with their body paying for everything related to that choice? I will tell you this much. Where those doing the choosing are held accountable to the level of their choices they tend to make better and more thought out choices. If they know someone else will offset the costs, they have no reason to think about what they do. Ponder this. Women are provided at a cost to someone else reliable contraception although there is only one type of birth control that is 100% foolproof 100% of the time. Despite using it the woman still becomes pregnant and decides to have the kid. Although HER choice is to have the baby, she can't afford to support it. Are the taxpayers then required to do that?
It's not the government's responsibility to take care of you. It's yours. It's not punishing someone to expect them to pay for THEIR choices. It's quite obvious you don't know the difference between public entities and private choices. You think they're one in the same. BTW, I pay taxes that fund those things. When is the last time a welfare leech paid for the handouts they get?
In this case it is useless to discuss abortion (rights) when a poster doesn't know the difference between rights and the governments responsibility to care for it's citizens. Rights do NOT depend on if and how much taxes one pays. And many women who have abortions and/or children do contribute in taxes especially if they can abort children they can't afford. IF they don't believe in abortion they have children they can't afford....and YES, America supports poor children.....it is the correct thing to do, the DECENT thing....so those opposed to it must be (?)……..... Poor people (PRECIOUS LIFE) do NOT leech, poor children are NOT leeches....even if YOU think so.
It's useless to discuss personal responsibility with someone that thinks an entity other than the person should take care of them Expecting someone to take care of kids YOU had isn't decent. It's freeloading. Someone else's kids AREN'T my responsibility even if you think so. Unless I got the ***** the kid came out of, it's the responsibility of the one that has the ***** and the sperm donor she let stick his dick in it to support. NO ONE ELSE. By definition, a leech is a person that sponges on others. Since those kids and their parents rely on others for support, they're leeches.
Then why are you against abortion or what you describe erroneously as"murdering BAAAABIES!"" ??? I would think you'd prefer children never existed rather than be "leeches"
How is abortion irresponsible if the woman can't afford a kid? Sounds responsible to me and you should applaud not having to support what you call a Leech/Child…. I'm not making them "leeches". They aren't leeches, they are human beings who need help......EXACTLY like you who needs help to travel , use the military, use public buildings , use disaster aid, use the court system, use water and power, EXACTLY the same thing I do believe that the government's job is to care for it's citizens and YOU STILL haven't said why it's not....
Lots of married couples get abortions. Contraception isn’t always effective. Married couples sometimes get careless in the heat of the moment. I know a number of couples decided to terminate during the last Zika outbreak in South Florida and wait until mosquito spraying was done. As for single women who have abortions, we know that education and easy access to contraception is far mor effective than scarlet letters. So yes, the abortion debate is a waste of money when that same money could go to education and contraception.
It's refusing to accept the results of a choice knowing the possibility of what that choice could do whether it was what you wanted or not. Doing something and knowing what could happen then killing the result because you don't like the result is irresponsible. It would be like burning down your house if you no longer wanted to make the payments and expecting no one to say anything to you or hold you accountable for it. There's an easy way to stop them from being leeches. Don't give them someone else's money. It's YOUR job to take care of yourself not push that responsibility off on anyone else. Why is it you believe you can make choices then when you can't afford them it's OK to force someone else to pay for it?
So being careless or something not working out the way you planned is a reason to kill what you don't want? Do you also believe that if you no longer want to live in the house where you currently reside and no one will buy it you can burn it down and collect the insurance money?
FoxHastings said: ↑ How is abortion irresponsible if the woman can't afford a kid? Sounds responsible to me and you should applaud not having to support what you call a Leech/Child…. I'm not making them "leeches". They aren't leeches, they are human beings who need help......EXACTLY like you who needs help to travel , use the military, use public buildings , use disaster aid, use the court system, use water and power, EXACTLY the same thing I do believe that the government's job is to care for it's citizens and YOU STILL haven't said why it's not.... Nobody is forced to pay for anything.....you are free to leave the country or not pay taxes......
Those parents are free to provide for their own kids or let them do without. You can believe what you want. You haven't proven it's the government's job to do for people what they won't do themselves.
I do believe that the government's job is to care for it's citizens and YOU STILL haven't said why it's not.... NOR have you explained what the government's "real" job is.... You can believe what you want and meanwhile the government is doing it's job and caring for children in need ....if you hate that then it must follow you hate children...
You haven't said why it is. I don't need to explain the government's job. The Constitution does and it says nothing about it's role being to take care of people because they won't take care of themselves. It's not the government's job to take care of children. It's the PARENT'S job. If a parent won't do that, they hate their children.
Its pointless until the standard of what is considered human and a "Lump of cells" is settled. There are two camps of people, those who chose to promote abortion feel the fetus isn't "alive" or get the same protections of the constitution or law as everyone else. They don't look at fetus, no matter what age from moment of conception till 2 y/o out of the womb as a viable human. So the mind sets are too far different that its pointless. Planned parenthood and their famous eugenics founder Margret Sanger preformed a masterful propaganda machine of the likes of Garbles would be proud of to change the definition of what people think about the life inside the uterus.
Daniel Light said: ↑ Lots of married couples get abortions. Contraception isn’t always effective. Married couples sometimes get careless in the heat of the moment. I know a number of couples decided to terminate during the last Zika outbreak in South Florida and wait until mosquito spraying was done. As for single women who have abortions, we know that education and easy access to contraception is far mor effective than scarlet letters. So yes, the abortion debate is a waste of money when that same money could go to education and contraception. Why? Show me what he posted that wasn't true....
It IS settled...a human fetus is human, it is NOT a legal person with rights until it's born. There are two camps, Pro-Choice and Anti-Choice. Pro-Choice does NOT promote abortion. Pro-Choice backs women's right to their own bodies , their right to choose. I have never seen anyone say a fetus isn't alive....where did you see that? It will the second it's born. What a load of unproven hyperbolic crap. . "Garbles" !!!! WTF is that !
So, you deny a human their right to life? Wonder if you are ok with putting machine guns on the wall to keep illegals out since they don't have the protection of the constitution till they are citizens? No, its not a binary system to choice. You think the pro-choice sticks up for the women, the other side is looking for the choice of the fetus since the mother made hers to have sex. The woman made the choice to have sex. Those you claim to be "anti-choicers" stick up for those who cant voice their choice. You've never heard the term "just a clump of cells"? Why is that the magic turning point? What can a newborn do that the fetus can't? So why can't the fetus be allowed to live? The woman made the choice to preform the act that can lead to conception, the start of a new life. And if you don't think there are abortionist who believe that a mother should have the choice to kill their babies up to two years old, you don't know who you side with. Goebbels, doesn't change the points you ignored.
Show me what he posted is true. When someone says "easy access to contraception" what they mean is they're demanding someone else provide it to them for a choice THEY make. If you make your choices, you pay the price.
