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.
That's you. Not every taxpayer condones abortion. Feticide is illegal in most US states, except for the mother. She can kill a fetus, at will. That's a violation of the US Constitution's Equal Protections Clause. Either anyone can kill a fetus, or no one can.
Furthermore, eliminate public assistance for all but the genuinely incapacitated. One's actions yield consequences. It's one's own responsibility to bear the consequences of one's actions. Or are you going to pay the penalty and interest and/or go to prison for me if I don't pay my 5-figure 2018 4th quarter federal income tax estimate this January 15th?
I pay around the same amount in taxes, so don't even go there.
As for the feticide, the way I see it, the woman is a host for another organism. Why not look at it as an eviction? Most women who get abortions don't get them because they want to kill, but because they want it OUT of their bodies asap.
My husband works for a company where they must drive a company truck, and in many cases get a security clearance to enter the buildings they are servicing.
Over and over they have to toss applications in the trash because the applicant has a DUI, fails a drug test, or has a record that prohibits them from getting a security clearance.
Again, CHOOSING to be poor.
I just heard a little of the history of dick cheney.
Dropped out of Yale...flunked out and drunkenness.
Went back to WY - two major DUI's - based on the evidence it would seem fair to say he drove drunk 100's of nights (he'd drink to excess each night).
Bad habits - smoking, etc.
GWB had 10 years missing out of his work history...also drunk much of the time.
Yet these two were elevated to the highest position in the land.....ended up costing the world trillions and the damage goes on.
So, how does that square with your POV? Based on what you said, both should be destitute.
Planned Parenthood is fine if they didn't accept medicaid (taxpayer money) for abortions, as they do in about 20 states, including CA, NY, IL, NJ, etc. Abortions are optional and should be paid by the person requesting such.
We're not talking personal opinion here...we're taking the tendencies of major political and religious alignments in this country.
There is little doubt that many of the same people who complain about "poor people having children" are also the same who won't provide alternatives (money for better education, family planning, etc.).
Your views are somewhat besides the point. The Right has hung its hat on the religious freedom of being able to have 10 kids. They would never dare to suggest otherwise. Having a more decent society would rob them of something to complain about.
Two words for you: school vouchers. Let the students and their families choose their school, so they're not trapped in abysmal public schools anymore.
Our country's public schools will never improve because they don't have to. They have a captive clientele and guaranteed job security and they like it that way.
Nice talking point but no matter how you slice it, entire states (mostly conservative ones like OK) vote against more money for education. Public schools don't make the kids be born addicted to booze or force them to drink lead-tainted water. They just deal with what limited resources they are given.
Nothing wrong with all-of-the-above and there are vast numbers of charter, private and magnet schools where I live. Also parents can send their kids to another (public) school district nearby by choice.
I mean - the "job security" thing is getting old. The Military has job security as does our medical complex. Most people, or at least many, have job security. That has little to do with anything unless you truly think that a Teacher stands there for thousands of hours faking it because they get paid anyway.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,587,616 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Oh, BS. We all know the tone and content of your posts. You, like 2sleepy, condone people having children that they can’t afford to support and therefore force other people to pay for their child-rearing expenses.
What I said you did is true, and now you're putting words in my mouth to boot
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,587,616 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Two words for you: school vouchers. Let the students and their families choose their school, so they're not trapped in abysmal public schools anymore.
Here's something that was brought up in the 2008 election, regarding Barack Obama and school vouchers. LISTEN to what Black and Hispanic adults are saying about education. Blacks and Hispanics are the two lowest demographic groups in academic achievement by 12th grade standards. The contrast is stark, and I'll post that data later, if you wish. In the meantime:
Quote: Obama Questioned on Vouchers
Our country's public schools will never improve because they don't have to. They have a captive clientele and guaranteed job security and they like it that way.
School vouchers only cover half the cost of tuition, so they would be of no use to working class or poor parents, who couldn't come up with the other half of the tuition
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,587,616 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohhwanderlust
I would absolutely support that as a condition to receiving welfare.
I wouldn't, as sterlization is permanent, but being poor isn't always permanent. I was receiving food stamps and medicaid while working in 2009, and now am middle class. So that is going way too far
I pay around the same amount in taxes, so don't even go there.
The point was that if I don't pay, will you pay for me, including taxes and penalties, and/or go to jail for me because I didn't pay? If I choose that action: nonpayment. I should suffer the consequences of that nonpayment. The same is true of the poor who have sex and subsequently get pregnant. They chose an action, therefore they should suffer the consequence of paying to have their fetus killed (which still violates the Equal Protection Clause) or supporting that child without taking money by force from others to do so. Voluntary donations to support either are fine. There should be no problem raising enough voluntary funding from those who support having kids one cannot afford and/or killing fetuses. Their quite mouthy about their support of both. They can put their money where their mouths are.
Quote:
As for the feticide, the way I see it, the woman is a host for another organism. Why not look at it as an eviction? Most women who get abortions don't get them because they want to kill, but because they want it OUT of their bodies asap.
Tell that to the people convicted of fetal homicide and sentenced to prison for doing so. The law doesn't consider fetal homicide an "eviction" unless the mother kills the fetus. That's a violation of the US Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. Either anyone can kill a fetus, or no one can.
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.
