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.
And the end result is that we'd all pay for those completely unnecessary upgrades by increased cost in care--every penny of it would be passed along by raising medical care costs. If you think health care costs are high now....
I don't think some of these people even try to THINK.
So it is ok for it to be unsafe because being safe would be expensive?
The government already pays for 45% of abortions, I'm surprised to see you so concerned with government spending, seems to be a first for you on this forum.
Agree. All have to do is negotiate a suitable agreement with the tooth fairy and put a stop to all unwanted pregnancies.
I'm glad you mentioned the tooth fairy, lvoc. Have you heard about the new movement to stop the murder of innocent patients who go in for what is deceptively presented as a simple dental procedure? What Pro-Life Is Pro-Tooth (PLIPT) seeks to do is hold dental offices to unreasonable standards that even hospitals are NOT held to in order to get those dental offices to close. It's the only thing to do morally. Life is life. Oral hygiene, healthy gums, and the relief of tooth pain are never worth an innocent life!!!!
Was unaware using condoms was difficult. They even give them away for free. Plus they have all sorts of other contraception that prevents pregnancies. You can even use more than one type of contraceptive to be even more safe. But I know these things are hard to know, I learned them in the 5th grade during sex education.
Ohh but with the wide spread use of condoms and other birth control that you guys are so successfully promoting it will be a piece of cake to support the few that get through..
Once all these births are well covered the problem will go away will it not?
You certainly would not want to have these poor babies born into a ghetto existence with poor food, clothing and morals would you?
So it is ok for it to be unsafe because being safe would be expensive?
The government already pays for 45% of abortions, I'm surprised to see you so concerned with government spending, seems to be a first for you on this forum.
First, it's pretty obvious that you've never read any of my economic threads.
Second, I think it's "pretty obvious" that you haven't got a clue about what you're talking about.
Where do you have ANY evidence or data that shows that existing clinics are unsafe, and where are you coming up with data on government funded abortions? NO federal money can be used for abortions unless the women's life would be threatened by taking the pregnancy to term or in cases of rape and incest. Seventeen states help pay for abortions for some poor women, but it's only about 14% of the abortions performed in the country. If you're in a state where state funds can't be used for abortions, it's entirely out of your own pocket.
Ohh but with the wide spread use of condoms and other birth control that you guys are so successfully promoting it will be a piece of cake to support the few that get through..
Once all these births are well covered the problem will go away will it not?
You certainly would not want to have these poor babies born into a ghetto existence with poor food, clothing and morals would you?
The ghetto existence pays over 80k per year, they seem to be doing ok right now.
Well here is your chance. Get out there and sell the $50,000 per pregnancy. Think how much money the country will save and, for some reason, I bet the ladies involved will be pleased.
There've been a million media accounts, and a million threads here, debunking this. For instance, I ran the salary and family size you listed at $19K a year through the benefits calculator for north dakota (because it's online and easy to use), and after paying $600 a month in rent, their foodstamp benefit was $36 a month--thats $432 a year instead of $6028. Most of the other benefits you outlined would be available to someone on welfare and at a lot lower cost that what you've described. Someone making $19K wouldn't qualify for most of it. Depending on the state, there is a cap on the number of months you can draw welfare, and unless you have a very young child, there are work requirements--you either have to have a job or be in a vocational training program. Nice try though.
There've been a million media accounts, and a million threads here, debunking this. For instance, I ran the salary and family size you listed at $19K a year through the benefits calculator for north dakota (because it's online and easy to use), and after paying $600 a month in rent, their foodstamp benefit was $36 a month--that $432 a year instead of $6028. Most of the other benefits you outlined would be available to someone on welfare--not someone earning $19K a year. Depending on the state, there is a cap on the number of months you can draw welfare, and unless you have a very young child, there are work requirements--you either have to have a job or be in a vocational training program. Nice try though.
This was for Pennsylvania and it is accurate. Just because you say it is not does not make it untrue. People can just jump from one vocational training program to another at community college, I knew people that did while I was in community college. They were there so they could stay on the dole, one of my classmates was in her 8th year of community college btw.
This was for Pennsylvania and it is accurate. Just because you say it is not does not make it untrue. People can just jump from one vocational training program to another at community college, I knew people that did while I was in community college. They were there so they could stay on the dole, one of my classmates was in her 8th year of community college btw.
The number of months you can be on public assistance is determined by each state. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether you get your vocational training done in that time or not. Many states limit it to as little as two years total in your lifetime.
Here's the pennsylvania calculator. I ran the numbers through, and at $19K in income for a family with one adult and a child, and $1000 in household goods (that includes a car) you wouldn't qualify AT ALL for foodstamps. I ran the numbers through the calculator for the state of Oregon and it came out to $44/month. Like I said--nice try. https://www.compass.state.pa.us/compass.web/CMHOM.aspx
Recently in Virginia, a law was passed requiring hospital like standards for abortion clinics and liberals threw a hissy fit. Why do liberals think abortion clinics are above regulations?
Abortion is conducive to reliance on government. The more freely available abortion is, the less reliance on personal responsibility there is. Personal responsibility is anathema to liberals. On the surface it appears hypocritical that the people who want to regulate what size soda you can buy are so against regulating a medical procedure, but you need to look below the surface.
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.