So the only increase of children being born, will be mothers on welfare. Do you know how classist that statement is? We can go round and round on this, but getting pregnant is not a crime. Since preventative measures are available, it is irresponsible and selfish to not bother with them, when it would save additional costs to terminate the pregnancy. I am responsible for the consequences of my actions. The medical care does not include the invasion of my body by a surgical procedure. And since you seem to think that only welfare receipients will be getting pregnant and abortions, which apparently you also think will be paid for by the taxpayers as 'medical treatments', if I were to have burned my hand, I would be the one paying the bill. But it's so much more fun to be irresponsible and make other people pay for, right!?! (sarcasm included) Who in hell compared it to suicide? Oh, and now a person having sex and getting pregnant is the equivalent of buying a lemon vehicle? Did you actually read what you wrote? You know something, you are so stuck on the idea that people should not be responsible for their actions, that other people should be paying for their irresponsibility, comparing terminating a pregnancy with buying a car, and claiming that carry a pregnancy to term is 'slavery' that there really is no realty to your method of thinking. Enjoy your many, many happy abortions, and keep that method of thinking well in to your adult years. O stated why it's wrong many times, I can't force you to understand it. So you have no problem if I choose not to vaccinate and encourage others to not vaccinate, after all, it is the right to one's own body. Sovereignty and all that.
No, it isn't. Wealthy women will always be able to have abortions....banning abortions will affect the poor more than any other group. Then women should not be punished for it as the Republicans want them to be. Being irresponsible and selfish are not crimes either. , BUT you would NOT be denied care because you risked a burn. YES, if women are FORCED to gestate the government should pay all their costs and pay for the child from conception to cradle to grave. The taxpayers WILL be paying more for Welfare as more and more poor children are born. Being responsible may mean a woman has an abortion ( taxpayers do not pay for abortions, they pay for care and delivery of women who can't afford to pay their own bills), she accepts the fact that she doesn't want or can't afford a kid and has an abortion, that's very responsible...it may not be YOUR idea of responsible but her choice is all that really matters. Yes, and maybe you shuld have, too. I made an analogy (look it up): """"I see you think that if someone buys a car, always a RISK, and that car turns out to be a lemon, they should be FORCED to keep that car forever (because they took that RISK) and suffer all financial setbacks and possible physical injury, maybe even death, because they HAVE to pay the consequences for taking a risk. that is asinine.""" You know something? you couldn't refute one word of what I posted I accept your defeat. That's in response to :"""Being FORCED like an animal to gestate IS slavery....having the right to one's own body taken away IS slavery...do you really think slavery is simply having to pick cotton?????""" But yet you can't state why it's wrong """ ...and you never said what was wrong with that statement. Vaccination involves all of society and lack of it puts society at risk and causes illness/ death of others.
FORCING someone to carry a fetus to term IS slavery just as you would be enslaved if you were forced to provide food, clothing and housing for an infant for 9 months against your will.
Too bad you never took TDR's advice because had you thought about it this is what you might have realized what he was actually saying. Men have the ability to wage war but NOT every man wants to be FORCED to fight in an unjustifiable war. Women have the ability to become pregnant but NOT every woman wants to be FORCED to give birth to an unwanted child. Just having an ability does not mean anyone must be FORCED to do it against their better judgement.
Maybe true. ================================================== Just sharing Teddy Roosevelt's perspective. Get It Or Not. Bully
I particularly like the fact that one of your ideas is to starve the children born to unwed mothers. That will teach those children the folly of being born to a single mother. Better idea would be to castrate the men who get the unmarried women pregnant. Now that goes right to the root of the problem.
No. He signed off on limiting purchases to those 21 or over and a red flag law that I think will be overturned on due process grounds. But assault weapons weren't even brought up.
Row vs. Wade One of the U.S. Supreme Court's best decisions. The justices supporting that decision did a lot of research on the development of embryos & fetuses in their attempt to determine at what point the developing fetus deserved Constitutional protections as a citizen. I admire them for their effort & their result. I like to keep in mind the truism: Pro-Choice supporters never try to dictate to anyone what choice the mother should make, and they literally keep government out of the decision. The Pro-Life supporters on the other hand strive to use government as their tool of choice to force all of us to comply with their views against abortion, which for many--possibly the majority--is based on religious interpretations or beliefs. The new Alabama law just passed, is a living example of their determination to forceably inflict their views over everyone else. Their willingness to ignore the rights of everyone except the fetus, forces me to support the Pro-Choice side very strongly. I see the Pro-Life side as strongly hypocritical in its stance.
Gosh, how reactive of you. Why not spay the women as well? They are also the root, are they not? The point isn't to starve kids, the point is to remove the incentivization provided by government to support women who make poor choices. Don't you suppose that the support should be the last resort as opposed to the first option?
Well that is the difference isn't it. The troglodytes belive it is all the woman's responsibility while the educated believe both sexes have responsibility.
Make book on this: If Roe v Wade were overturned by the Supreme Court, there would never be another Republican president elected ever after in the United States -- period! Radical Democrats would love nothing better!
By cutting funding you are cutting funding to those "precious lives" CHILDREN... the CHILDREN can't help being born and banning abortion will make MORE of them for taxpayers to pay for....seems that's what Republicans WANT!!!!!!!! FEEDING children should be the first option..
Yes, but what a sacrifice for women....losing the right to their own bodies to get rid of Trump....Oh, don't get me wrong, The Dictator should go ...but at what price?
How do you remove the incentive for women drawn to welfare or other social programs without hurting the children in the process?
Yes, I agree with you completely. In my post, I was simply responding to what the previous forum post stated.
It is actually sad to read something like the above. It demonstrates the inability of those who would never take personal responsibility for something, and puts it in the public domain for all to witness. The original assertion was for men who create unwanted children to be castrated. Ok, how does also asking for the woman involved to also suffer sterilization become the "belief it is all the woman's responsibility"? Clearly it does not. It actually asks for them to be treated as equally to the sterilization outcome you originally expressed. It seems unlikely then that what you really then want is equality, just typical deflection. Your willingness to describe entirely unequal outcomes is the indicator the rest of us can evaluate your shrill opinion then with. So, as unintentional as it like was, you've actually provided the rest of us quite a service...
Likely not. By changing the policy, we change behavior, or do liberals now not believe you effect behavior through policy? Laughable.
