Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Reportedly there are about 1.21 million abortions in the US a year, a continuation of a steady decline since 1980. Who the hello is going to adopt an incremental 1.21 million kids a year?
You down with funding school bonds and lunch programs? Because this country is full of kids in sub-standard schools who go to bed hungry. And I'm really tired of knowing how many 'pro-life' people refuse to vote for better school lunch programs and libraries.
It depends on the circumstances. If it were under illegal circumstances (rape, statutory rape, etc.) or an incestuous relationship, certain birth defects and risk of health/life to the mother then yes. As an alternative method of birth control then no.
If it serves a necessary medical purpose, as in the mother's life is in danger, well, we can talk. Or if it's to terminate a pregnancy that resulted from a rape, since I consider that an extension of the justice system. But if it's just because they can't afford a child or don't want it... no. That's you're problem, not anyone else's.
Just apply some common sense when we're dealing with public good. I have no major issue with universal healthcare, it's just hard to provide a service like that for 320 million people (which is why I find comparisons to European countries who DO have universal healthcare but for populations that are a fraction of the US population rather amusing). But if it works and is sustainable, fund away. But medical care that is not absolutely necessary should be between you and those you pay, not you and everyone else. Things like cosmetic surgery should not be at the expense of the public. Emergencies like appendicitis however can be covered in a universal healthcare system.
Now, to get a system started, we'd have to prioritize a bit. Certain necessary procedures may not be covered if they are not as pressing. It's a tricky issue.
As for religious views... religion is a personal endeavor. No one should be forced to do wrong according to their religion but we can't base our laws around that.
Please provide any evidence that you can find on here about my stance on libraries and lunch programs that I "refused" to vote for.
Also, for the blood thirsty on here who see nothing wrong with killing a child, you all act like there's no such thing as adoption. Man, get the hell over yourselves.
Take.a.breath. Before you blow a gasket....go back....read what I wrote....and notice I asked you a question.
I am pro-child. And that includes the children of inner-city single mothers, gay parents and undocumented immigrants. It also includes the tens of thousands of kids who will age out of foster care this year without the love and support of a family.
Last edited by DewDropInn; 04-07-2015 at 06:40 PM..
If it serves a necessary medical purpose, as in the mother's life is in danger, well, we can talk. Or if it's to terminate a pregnancy that resulted from a rape, since I consider that an extension of the justice system. But if it's just because they can't afford a child or don't want it... no. That's you're problem, not anyone else's.
Just apply some common sense when we're dealing with public good. I have no major issue with universal healthcare, it's just hard to provide a service like that for 320 million people (which is why I find comparisons to European countries who DO have universal healthcare but for populations that are a fraction of the US population rather amusing). But if it works and is sustainable, fund away. But medical care that is not absolutely necessary should be between you and those you pay, not you and everyone else. Things like cosmetic surgery should not be at the expense of the public. Emergencies like appendicitis however can be covered in a universal healthcare system.
Now, to get a system started, we'd have to prioritize a bit. Certain necessary procedures may not be covered if they are not as pressing. It's a tricky issue.
As for religious views... religion is a personal endeavor. No one should be forced to do wrong according to their religion but we can't base our laws around that.
They also don't spent 600 million plus on defense spending, so......
The country is full of kids born to sub standard, emotionally immature parents who are unable or unwilling to take financial responsibility for their offspring.
No need for any child to go to bed hungry unless the child is holding out for Twinkies or mom and/or dad can't or won't manage their SNAP benefits.
It's ironic that so many feel so strongly about pro- life and " supporting" Israel who uses public funds for abortions, social welfare, universal healthcare and low cost university education for qualified students.
It's even more ironic that we borrow the money to give to Israel from China who limits families to one child and uses public funds to pay for abortions.
And here we sit all smug in morality.
Why bring Israel into this?
Health care in Israel is universal and participation in a medical insurance plan is compulsory.Citizens join one of four health care funds for basic treatment but can increase medical coverage by purchasing supplementary health care. In the case of abortions, the state may subsidize part of the cost, but not the entire cost. The state has a fixed dollar amount that is set aside for this subsidy. The Israeli gov't gets "0" dollars from the US related to this. All funding to Israel is Military only.
Why don't you go through the USAID website and see which countries do get economic and other types of aid.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.