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 not only about the money, it's about the want. If someone becomes pregnant and they don't actually want a child, what kind of parent would that person be?
I think everyone knows that kind of attitude people have when they are forced to do something they don't want to do.
The kind that is willing stop the heartbeat of their child.
-Unborn children are human beings
-My tax dollars should not be used to kill human beings
-My tax dollars should not be used to raise liberals' mistakes, er, children
But surely you want your tax dollars to be used to raise conservatives mistakes. Or do conservatives never indulge in sex except when they want to have a baby.
I thought liberals were the "science" guys. Most humans have lived day to day since we crawled out of the ocean. Today, more than half of all humans live on $2 a day or less. Another two billion live on less than $20 a day.
The party of science makes sure to remind us that humans are not special; just another mammal. The party of science makes sure we don't feed the bears at Jellystone because it actually throws off the natural equilibrium of nature. And the same party of science is simultaneously anti-science when it comes to humans, cause "babies" and "God" and stuff.
If you want an abortion, pay for an abortion.
If you don't want children, don't have children. Take the appropriate precautions. BC is not a right. There are billions of private dollars spent on reproductive issues and health. I'm sure Soros can find some money for feee BC.
Finally, it is compassionate, religious orders who historically have cared for the orphans of the world. The State has generally viewed the poor as slaves. Kings are always happy to have another worker born into servitude. The Catholic Church was at odds with England over the care of the poor. Try not to generalize so much.
Thank you for pointing this out. The "Science" party believes that an unborn child is "just like a tumor" or "a clump of cells." They believe that men have uteruses (uteri?) and women have penises.
They claim that snow is caused by global warming. Heat is caused by global warming. Rain is caused by global warming. Cow farts are ending life on earth as we know it, yet - they are the "party of science."
Fist of all there is a tiny minority that wants abortion to be illegal. Secondly, BC is the responsibility of the person having sex as is the child that comes with it for not being proactive. If you don't want to get pregnant and don't want to use BC, then don't have sex. If you still have sex and you get pregnant, it's you're own fault and you're own responsibility. it's that damn simple.
But it's not that simple, is it? That's how you want it to be but the reality IS that we do help support babies born to low income parents.
By defunding PP - you will prevent many young women with easy access to birth control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tritone
You're speaking as if abortion is the only way to prevent pregnancy. No, *that is what contraceptives are for* and no one is taking away women's rights to contraceptives.
Abortion is not contraception.
Yet how many employers want to REFUSE to pay for birth control for their employees as part of their health plan?
It is a net loss to society as well as the individual if they have to cheat themselves of their full potential because of an unplanned pregnancy. Get off the high horse already.
Put yourself in those shoes. You'd rather have to work at McDonalds or WalMart and be poor just to raise an unplanned kid? Get real
It is a net loss to society when selfish and careless individuals end the potential of life.
1) It happens, regardless of planning, protection and every other way to ensure it doesn't it happens. Please don't spout the abstinence line because that definitely doesn't work.
2) Men are not always deadbeats as stated by some posters, woman like to state "it's my body it's my choice" until the child is born then its "it's your child, it's your responsibility". Too often they are not told until after the fact....
3) For all those who are against there being a choice I would like to ask how many kids have you adopted? Not the healthy white ones but those who may have mixed parentage or possible health/learning issues? You all spout the same rhetoric but for the most part after the child is born your part is done and someone not prepared to be a parent is now one, God help some of these children.
But it's ok because a life was saved....
So you do not believe that abstaining from sexual intercourse prevents pregnancy?
Not selfish, again you cheat society of your talent as well as yourself.
My fiance herself had an abortion 10 years ago, and though it was a painful experience, she's glad she did. The father was a drunk, abusive, beat her constantly, and neither of them really made any money. What kind of household would that have been to bring an unwanted kid into?
Yeah, sounds like the household someone like a former president of the US was born into. But it is better to stop the heartbeat of a potential scientist that will cure cancer or discover the solution to "climate change."
Why should that potential have any validity when the person who created the potential chose to procreate with a drunk, broke, abuser. Sure sounds like the "chooser" had way more potential than the victim inutero.
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.