Mississippi asks Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade; says 1973 decision was "egregiously wrong" (economy, implant)
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.
As I told another poster just now, I already pay taxes to support various welfare programs, to include Medicaid, Obamacare, children's health insurance programs, food stamps, section 8/housing programs, etc. But being poor doesn't mean that you don't have a life worth living. The poor do live meaningful lives; this isn't some exclusive things to the well-to-do.
My taxes already go to support welfare in the form of rental assistance/section 8, food stamps, Medicaid, children's health insurance programs, etc.
But, as I've stated elsewhere, too, being poor doesn't mean that you don't have life worth living. The poor live meaningful lives just like the rest of us. Being poor is not, from where I stand, a legitimate reason to snuff out innocent life.
You missed the point. Eliminating all abortions would create many more poor children than we have now. So are you prepared to pay for a major increase in "welfare" costs?
You missed the point. Eliminating all abortions would create many more poor children than we have now. So are you prepared to pay for a major increase in "welfare" costs?
You asked if I would be willing to support that poor child. But I already do and an increased poor population would require additional funds for welfare programs all the same. But, again, being poor doesn't mean that you don't have a life worth living. Again, I thank God that my poor ancestors post-emancipation and during Jim Crow weren't able to abort on demand. My folks were dirt poor and didn't have welfare programs. But we persevered. Poverty is not a legitimate excuse for snuffing out innocent life from where I stand.
As I told another poster just now, I already pay taxes to support various welfare programs, to include Medicaid, Obamacare, children's health insurance programs, food stamps, section 8/housing programs, etc. But being poor doesn't mean that you don't have a life worth living. The poor do live meaningful lives; this isn't some exclusive things to the well-to-do.
Still sounds like a no…
It’s more than just gov programs that they cost. More roads, bridges, schools etc. more costs for policing from increased crime.
Poor people deserve the right to life, too. Being poor doesn't mean that you don't have life worth living. I am for damn sure that abortion on demand wasn't available to my ancestors post-slavery in this country as my people were dirt poor and had all the odds stacked against them. And zero welfare.
But we persevered.
All in all, I see no conflict between forcing people to take greater responsibility for their lives vs. being against abortion on demand policies. If one needs welfare, that's one thing. But welfare shouldn't be allowed to be a lifelong lifeline if one is able to work from where I stand.
So you think the women should remain barefoot and perpetually pregnant like in the old days?
BTW, abortion has been around since biblical times. Not always successful and not always safe for the woman.
It’s more than just gov programs that they cost. More roads, bridges, schools etc. more costs for policing from increased crime.
What's your point? Poverty isn't a legitimate excuse to snuff out innocent life in my book. We deal with the poor as necessary. The poor deserve a right to life just like the rest of us.
If poverty resulted in what you wrote inherently, then Chinese-American communities would be some of the most crime-ridden, least-educated communities in this country as many of them have extremely high poverty rates. But that's not the case.
So you think the women should remain barefoot and perpetually pregnant like in the old days?
BTW, abortion has been around since biblical times. Not always successful and not always safe for the woman.
Unlike the old days, we have welfare programs, extensive public education available at no out of pocket cost for individuals to attend, etc. But, even in the old days, the answer wasn't abortion on demand from where I stand. And certainly not on account of poverty.
And, yes, abortion has long been around and always will be around. But that's not the point.
Sanger is no longer alive and no longer involved with PP. What's your point?
It has always been a horrific organization with dastardly motives. Its history should be mentioned.
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.
