U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 08-08-2015, 03:05 AM
 
9,715 posts, read 13,288,635 times
Reputation: 3318

Advertisements

They'll support the children with prayer.

That's always their solution.

 
Old 08-08-2015, 03:41 AM
 
12,403 posts, read 3,865,434 times
Reputation: 3764
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXNGL View Post
Public funding pays for neither.
Planned parenthood gets around $400 million a year in public funding. PP is being indirectly publically funded to perform abortions. They should not be allowed to perform abortions since they are being publically funded. Giving government benefits and tax breaks and protections to gay couples is publically funding. Public funding at least indirectly pays for both.
 
Old 08-08-2015, 03:42 AM
 
17,027 posts, read 9,521,810 times
Reputation: 5701
Quote:
Originally Posted by hothulamaui View Post
what people "should do" is far different than reality. can't hide your head in the sand.


What becomes "acceptable" practice also weakens responsibility for one's actions and encourages that reality to become ever even worse.

Abortion has already weakened families, changed morals for the worse and actually out of wedlock births have increased since Roe vs Wade.
 
Old 08-08-2015, 03:59 AM
 
7,144 posts, read 7,930,461 times
Reputation: 4370
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer View Post
They already are, it's called welfare unless you tuned in late.

welfare in America is extremely small

its a very fair question OP
 
Old 08-08-2015, 05:08 AM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,194 posts, read 16,560,929 times
Reputation: 8847
Quote:
Originally Posted by smart-dumb-kid View Post
We seen the republican debate. Many of them take a pro life stance and want to see planned parenthood defunded, and by extension, abortion harder to obtain. We also know the right stance on the poor, from this very board to. To many see them as lazy, a burden, and not pulling their fair share. If the right gets there wish, then the problem here is transparent; how will we support these extra kids? It isn't a question of could we, but will we? You can't say tough luck, because you wanted these kids to be born. You have to pay for their healthcare, and well being. The foster care system will swell greatly and quickly to. Crime will likely rise as poorly raised kids will inevitably commit crime. Jobs will become more scarce as the children take up more of them. Homelessness will rise to. All of this will cost us hundreds of millions and most likely billions. This burden is something America can ill afford, but can with proper compromises, probably increased taxes or budget cuts. It will be a hard sell however, as many conservatives will be loathe to lend aid to welfare babies, or pay more taxes, or take cuts to programs they want. The solution to the influx of extra kids is something that isn't talked about by the GOP, but nonetheless needs to be.
Why can't those who are getting pregnant (when apparently they don't want to) take responsibility for their own offspring? There might be fewer "unwanted" pregnancies. Why ask such a ridiculous question?

Why should the American taxpayer be supporting Planned Parenthood with their dollars. Planned Parenthood doesn't need the money. They are not a charity, they are a business.
 
Old 08-08-2015, 05:11 AM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,194 posts, read 16,560,929 times
Reputation: 8847
Quote:
Originally Posted by smart-dumb-kid View Post
They're trying to limit welfare, not expand it, unless you haven't tune in late. I'm willing to bet you haven't, as your name seem to go against your message. I thought you would want less taxes, not more?
Welfare should be limited to those who really need it; but, also to those who are actively seeking work, and are willing to work. Too many are simply living off the government, not making any attempt to find employment and get off the government dime.
 
Old 08-08-2015, 05:50 AM
 
Location: My little patch of Earth
6,193 posts, read 4,552,882 times
Reputation: 3046
Saying PP is paid for using public funds and saying none of it goes toward abortion is about the stupidest statement I've ever heard.

Kinda like when a will is probated and a family divides up the proceeds. It's divided up equally among the survivors - the ones that worked hard and made responsible choices in life get an equal share right along with those that leech from the whole family throughout life constantly borrowing, never paying back anything, getting bailed out of every situation they get themselves into by the Mom and Dad and other family members. The whole of the survivors 'pay' for it with a smaller share when the estate settles. And if one objects, they are castigated by all.

Roe v Wade was pushed through as a law predicated on a lie. Once that lie allowed a foot in the door, the door was kicked down - abortions are now birth control for the irresponsible in society. While the use of abortion for the reasons it was meant for, rape, health, etc., I have no problem with that, but the reasons it is practiced now is for the reason previously mentioned. And all one needs to do now is call it a 'right' to do with their own body. Newsflash, it takes two to make three and preventing the three is simple, usually free and responsible. It's not a 'right' no matter how one phrases it.

The current practice of 'distributing' body parts for research and getting 'reimbursed' for shipping and handling is just an outgrowth of the original lie. And it's disgusting to say the least. And when we call it out, we get castigated by those liars to justify their practice.



There ain't enough smileys here to show what many feel.
 
Old 08-08-2015, 06:04 AM
 
Location: Boston, MA
11,660 posts, read 8,255,086 times
Reputation: 5760
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwruckman View Post
The answer is short and sweet. NO People who are too weak or poor to care for their kids shouldn't have had them in the first place.
If you need government assistance to provide the basic necessities of feeding, clothing, and housing your children, you have no business having more of them.

I would say that sums up my stance on the subject.
 
Old 08-08-2015, 06:04 AM
 
4,987 posts, read 2,655,545 times
Reputation: 2738
Will democrats kill every child that can't be taken care of by their parents?
 
Old 08-08-2015, 06:17 AM
Status: "Elect a clown? Expect a circus!" (set 3 days ago)
 
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
58,049 posts, read 40,801,152 times
Reputation: 29722
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer View Post
They already are, it's called welfare unless you tuned in late.
Care to list the RW legislators who support welfare to take care of unwanted children? Or are you talking about corporate welfare?
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:48 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top