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.
It's interesting because you seem to think that writing "forced" is going to bother me when you have no problem forcing Americans to pay for your life choices.
Just quoting your initial post. (#13)
A tad defensive now, aren't we?
Quote:
Originally Posted by njquestions
Dude, "early death" is like a mission statement for Planned Parenthood.
Contact your local agency if you don't believe me.
Let's face it.
What you and others like you are really saying is that you want women to serve as a "farm" system for those who cannot have children.
And of course, only the "right" women.
You don't give a damn about the children already born. Not really.
Y'all just want to force women to be surrogates without paying for it.
One poster talks about forced sterilization and someone else talks about the lack of babies.
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to next read about birth camps, similar to the "homes" that the Irish nuns ran in the 20th century.
Or maybe Argentina is a better model? Let's force them to carry and then take their babies and "disappear" them.
That would "cure" that whole single mother thing, wouldn't it?
If there are so many babies available, why is the wait around two years?
Let's face it, you seem to think women are too stupid to know how a baby is conceived.
BTW, I am all for abortion on demand in the first trimester with tightening restrictions that occur with time. I also want school districts to provide access to condoms in high school.
I think a condition of being on welfare is having a contraceptive implant.
I quoted and underlined that in the article - which also points out that the money they receive for other services frees up money for them to perform more abortions.
Alrighty then.
Israel has been the historically largest beneficiary of US financial aid, limited to military financial aid in recent times. To achieve a compariable outcome, Israel would have to cut costs and raise taxes, if not for the US. It comes to $47,500 per every Israli citizen, including babies, children and the elderly over a ten year period.
This financial aid frees up money for Israel to operate a substantially subsidized Universal Healthcare System that guarantees access to healthcare by all. This includes abortions.
It seems a tad inconsistent to oppose Pro Choice in the US and support continued generosity to Israel.
it is not about raising them. Research has clearly shown that children born to unwed parents are more likely to require special education, more likely to need to be removed from the home for their own protection, more likely to break the law as juveniles, more likely to be incarcerated as adults, more likely to require intensive mental health services, along with a rather long list of other things, than children born to married parents. The lower the socioeconomic level of the mother the greater the likelihood and extent of these issues. This means even if we cut off all the safety nets and contribute zero dollars to "raising" the child, society will still have to pay extra for special education services, the extra child protective service workers, extra law enforcement services, extra court costs, and extra for penal institutions. It is a heck of a lot cheaper to pay $15-50/month for the pill ($3,200-10,000 over 18 years) compared to the EXTRA $9,369 per year/per student average each special education student costs ($121,800 over 13 years in public school) compared to non-special education students. That doesn't even account for the other additional costs society pays not directly associated with "raising" the child.
Birth control is a wise investment.
I agree with everything you said in the second sentence. However, that doesn't change the fact that we're raising the kids. We pay for their special education, we pay for their child services, we pay for their incarceration, we pay for their mental health care, and so on.
So the underlying premise is that we have to raise people's kids for them. In other words, people could theoretically have 25 kids and we "can't" stop them ...and then liberals jump in and say "but we could abort them!" Oh, OK, but let's say I accept that, but the parents don't feel like aborting their 25 kids. Then what? Then the liberals go "guess you're stuck! I hope you have a good job because we need a lot of money!"
OK, so then someone like you would say "that's why birth control is smart!" OK, but still underlying is that for some odd reason I have to either pay for birth control or I can raise the kids. That's odd. But OK, let's say I'm down for paying for birth control. What if they don't use it and still get pregnant? Then we're back to saying "guess you're stuck! I hope you have a good job because we need a lot of money!"
Does this make sense to you? Because it shouldn't.
Planned Parenthood is where I received reproductive healthcare, including birth control, for most of college and early adulthood. They were the first medical practitioners who taught me to do a self breast exam, even though I was "only" 20 years old, which is what enabled me to know something was seriously wrong 3 years later when I caught my own cancer. I still go for testing and for female concerns because I can get in much easier than I can my doctor. Doctors are open 9-5 during the week - exactly when I work. Planned Parenthood is open until 8 most nights and open on Saturdays. It's a no-brainer.
All of which federal funding supports.
Federal funding did not go toward the compassionate care I received getting an abortion at 5 weeks for health reasons. I very much want children, but not at the risk of my fragile post-cancer health, not to mention the complete lack of societal support when I needed to go on bedrest for the greater part of a pregnancy - much longer than the 3 months that FMLA guarantees which would mean losing my job, my health insurance, and any way of supporting myself. I paid for the pills the induced a period - the government didn't and will never.
PP is a private organization and it should receive zero public funds. Even if public funding does not technically go to abortion, it still funds abortion indirectly. PP can continue to raise money selling aborted baby parts.
PP is not for profit.
Many seem to prefer private sector to public solutions.
Private prison stocks have soared since Trump was elected instead of Hillary who vowed to fight the for profit prison complex.
There is no shortage of historical examples of federal, state and local governments funding private not for profit organizations. Catholic Chairities is the largest conduit between government and the needy. The majority of its funding comes from government grants, certainly not the collection baskets in churches.
Planned Parenthood is where I received reproductive healthcare, including birth control, for most of college and early adulthood.
So you went to college and couldn't pay for your own birth control? And we're supposed to be moved? I mean, maybe if you said "yeah, I was totally destitute and couldn't even afford food," I'd buy the sob story (although then I'd be wondering who you were copulating with). But instead, you're like Sandra Fluke like "OMG, here I am in Georgetown and I can't afford birth control, I don't know what to doooooo!"
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.
