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.
You are a taxpayer (or I assume you are) who doesn't want tax money to go towards funding abortion. I am a taxpayer who considers abortion a part of women's health and doesn't mind my tax money going to support it. We seem to even ourselves out, don't we?
Yes but they "do" sanctimonious and outraged so much better.
Bills should be submitted to strip ALL federal monies from ALL faith-based operations regardless of the nature of the work they are being funded to do, because...they "should all be privately funded, just like PP and NPR."
If such a thing would pass through congress, unplanned pregnancys would skyrocket and hundreds of thousands of children would be born into poverty.
Republicans seem to support laws that would result in more children being born into poverty, and oppose social safety nets for those same children.
Go back to the linked PP financial statement from 2008 in and use that for your basis of arguement to back up your claims please.
Repeating a lie that PP would cease to exist without federal funding does not make it so. Is fear-mongering the only defense from the pro-abortionists?
If such a thing would pass through congress, unplanned pregnancys would skyrocket and hundreds of thousands of children would be born into poverty.
Republicans seem to support laws that would result in more children being born into poverty, and oppose social safety nets for those same children.
As others have pointed out, PP wouldn't be stripped of all funding. If you're so concerned about it, push to educate people about the risks of sex and donate to causes, including PP, that will educate and cover those who need assistance.
Bills should be submitted to strip ALL federal monies from ALL faith-based operations regardless of the nature of the work they are being funded to do, because...they "should all be privately funded, just like PP and NPR."
Myself and many responsible teenagers were capable of doing it, so it is possible. I understand everyone makes mistakes, but other people shouldn't have to pay for it.
But, when a teenager has an unplanned pregnancy........you are going to pay for it.
Teenagers cannot support a child on their own without help......so they go on Welfare......and you WILL PAY FOR IT.
We don't have children in America covered with flies and begging for food in the streets, not yet anyway. Take away funded BC, ban abortion and cut social programs and we will.
But, when a teenager has an unplanned pregnancy........you are going to pay for it.
Teenagers cannot support a child on their own without help......so they go on Welfare......and you WILL PAY FOR IT.
Exactly. We already pay a price for their irresponsibility. Perhaps anti-abortionists would rather do that than pay for an abortion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie53
We don't have children in America covered with flies and begging for food in the streets, not yet anyway. Take away funded BC, ban abortion and cut social programs and we will.
Hyperbole. Just because the House cuts PP funding, suddenly we're going to turn into a third world country? Come on.
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.
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.
Take away funded BC, ban abortion and cut social programs and we will.
