Pro-lifers cannot have it both ways

[Damaged Eagle]

Then why is it your, or your government's problem if she wants an abortion?????

She's free to pay for it herself if she wants an abortion.

No tax dollars.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Billy000]

Republicans never think ANY of their issues through. These are the same people who thought overturning Roe was a good idea until child victims of rape and incest were denied abortions.

Honestly I don’t even think they actually give a shit about those victimized children. After all they have no relation to the LGBT so they can’t even pretend to care.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Republicans never think ANY of their issues through. These are the same people who thought overturning Roe was a good idea until child victims of rape and incest were denied abortions.

.


Okay, Saul.



.

 

[Billiejeens]

You do a terrible job at it, apparently.

Why do you think that?

 

[Billiejeens]

Let them starve, the planet will supposedly kill us all anyway.

There is an active move on to exterminate 10% of the population - so -

 

[jknowgood]

They can’t tell an impoverished pregnant woman she has to carry the baby to term and then not have her kids receive any government benefits like SNAP after they are born.

Now the automatic response to this is always “well should have never gotten pregnant!”

Uh yeah no shit. Here’s the issue though: the kids exist. They exist right? Should they starve because of something their mom did? Probably not right? You guys get so caught up in shaming the woman that you forget why they get SNAP in the first place. The benefits they get is a small fraction of the full cost to raise a kid every year therefore it’s ridiculous to suggest the mom is profiting off of having kids.

Now some republicans’ fascist solution to this is to force the mom to put the kids up for adoption. Well that’s obviously a stupid idea. It’s not like people are lining up to adopt the kids huh? Meanwhile such a foster system would cost the government an astronomical amount of money per year. Far more than the cost of SNAP.

Do republicans realize how insane it is to suggest a ludicrous idea like this just so that mere PENNIES will not be taken out of their OWN paychecks to pay for this program?

Yeah really Christian of you guys! Jesus would be proud.

Ok then you cannot have it both ways. As long as abortion is legal do away with all snap benefits. Since they can just murder the baby if they can't afford it. Deal?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Then why is it your, or your government's problem if she wants an abortion?????

Our politicians are supposed to represent the views of their voters. A lot of people find abortion as barbaric or against God's will, and even consider it murder which is on God's top 10 list of no-no's for all mankind. So these politicians (for a change) are doing what they are supposed to do which is implement policies that represent the views of their constituents.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Republicans never think ANY of their issues through. These are the same people who thought overturning Roe was a good idea until child victims of rape and incest were denied abortions.

I think there was like what, one known case of that since the reversal?

 

[Billy000]

Ok then you cannot have it both ways. As long as abortion is legal do away with all snap benefits. Since they can just murder the baby if they can't afford it. Deal?

Well that logic really doesn’t make any sense because this is still about the kid and not the mom. So if the impoverished mother (who you can whine and shame all you want, no one cares) still has the kid who did not choose to be born, they would still need the benefits.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well that logic really doesn’t make any sense because this is still about the kid and not the mom. So if the impoverished mother (who you can whine and shame all you want, no one cares) still has the kid who did not choose to be born, they would still need the benefits.

IMO if a woman or man is applying for social program help for their child, the requirement should be they have to get fixed before receiving one red cent. No more having kids while collecting welfare for the kids you already have. You'd see how fast our abortion and unwanted pregnancy rates would drop.

 

[jknowgood]

Well that logic really doesn’t make any sense because this is still about the kid and not the mom. So if the impoverished mother (who you can whine and shame all you want, no one cares) still has the kid who did not choose to be born, they would still need the benefits.

No, it's legal to kill it. So there you go, your logic is if I force them to have it. I should pay for it, the abortion will end he financial woes. By liberal logic.

 

[jbander]

Being as it is a states rights issue, list all 57 states that do that.

Why because you say so, Jump right up and wave your hand and yell I'm a dumb fuck. You know shit.

 

[j-mac]

Billy000

"A groundbreaking study by Just Facts has discovered that – after accounting for all income, charity, and non-cash welfare benefits like subsidized housing and food stamps – the poorest 20 percent of Americans consume more goods and services than the national averages for all people in most affluent countries. This includes the majority of countries in the prestigious Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), including its European members.

In other words, if the U.S. “poor” were a nation, it would be one of the world’s richest."

America’s poorest are richer than most average Europeans: Study

A groundbreaking study by Just Facts has discovered that – after accounting for all income, charity, and non-cash welfare benefits like subsidized housing and food stamps – the poorest 20 percent of Americans consume more goods and services than the national averages for all people in most...

www.acton.org

 

[Billy000]

IMO if a woman or man is applying for social program help for their child, the requirement should be they have to get fixed before receiving one red cent. No more having kids while collecting welfare for the kids you already have. You'd see how fast our abortion and unwanted pregnancy rates would drop.

Well this also doesn’t make any sense because the benefit amount they get is a fraction of the total cost to raise a kid per year.

 

[Billy000]

No, it's legal to kill it. So there you go, your logic is if I force them to have it. I should pay for it, the abortion will end he financial woes. By liberal logic.

Lol you force them to have it? What? What’s mostly stupid about your whining about “paying for it” is that even if the mother gets SNAP, she is still paying for most of the cost to raise the kid. Meanwhile, mere pennies come from your paycheck in comparison. What also doesn’t make any sense is that it has been legal to kill “it” for decades anyway lol.

 

[jknowgood]

Lol you force them to have it? What? What’s mostly stupid about your whining about “paying for it” is that even if the mother gets SNAP, she is still paying for most of the cost to raise the kid. Meanwhile, mere pennies come from your paycheck in comparison. What also doesn’t make any sense is that it has been legal to kill “it” for decades anyway lol.

It's called being responsible, her body her choice. Till there is another living being in it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well this also doesn’t make any sense because the benefit amount they get is a fraction of the total cost to raise a kid per year.

it makes a lot of sense. The CDC estimate to raise a middle-class child today is $244,000. If we make sure these welfare mothers are not going to have anymore children, think of the money that will save taxpayers.

You have no idea what each household gets for social benefits. Besides SNAPs they can also get Medicaid coverage for their child, they can get a larger HUD voucher for housing, even in the suburbs, they can get day care subsidies before they reach school age, and let's not forget free school lunches, and sometimes breakfast and dinner when they do start attending public school.

So don't give me this fraction nonsense. It costs a lot of money to raise a child today.

 

[Billy000]

it makes a lot of sense. The CDC estimate to raise a middle-class child today is $244,000. If we make sure these welfare mothers are not going to have anymore children, think of the money that will save taxpayers.

You have no idea what each household gets for social benefits. Besides SNAPs they can also get Medicaid coverage for their child, they can get a larger HUD voucher for housing, even in the suburbs, they can get day care subsidies before they reach school age, and let's not forget free school lunches, and sometimes breakfast and dinner when they do start attending public school.

So don't give me this fraction nonsense. It costs a lot of money to raise a child today.

You’re making an erroneous assumption that they are all on those programs simultaneously. Many people on SNAP are not on HUD. Kids having lunch while at school does not somehow offset how expensive food can be while they are home. Either way, you oppose welfare of any kind so in your world they would all be on nothing lol. In order to qualify for programs like that, their income must be low enough. Some impoverished families don’t qualify for those programs. Their income might be too high while living in a high cost of living areas.

 

[Billy000]

It's called being responsible, her body her choice. Till there is another living being in it.

And yet it is still about the kid. From the beginning that’s what this thread has been about

 

[Flash]

They can’t tell an impoverished pregnant woman she has to carry the baby to term and then not have her kids receive any government benefits like SNAP after they are born.

Now the automatic response to this is always “well should have never gotten pregnant!”

Uh yeah no shit. Here’s the issue though: the kids exist. They exist right? Should they starve because of something their mom did? Probably not right? You guys get so caught up in shaming the woman that you forget why they get SNAP in the first place. The benefits they get is a small fraction of the full cost to raise a kid every year therefore it’s ridiculous to suggest the mom is profiting off of having kids.

Now some republicans’ fascist solution to this is to force the mom to put the kids up for adoption. Well that’s obviously a stupid idea. It’s not like people are lining up to adopt the kids huh? Meanwhile such a foster system would cost the government an astronomical amount of money per year. Far more than the cost of SNAP.

Do republicans realize how insane it is to suggest a ludicrous idea like this just so that mere PENNIES will not be taken out of their OWN paychecks to pay for this program?

Yeah really Christian of you guys! Jesus would be proud.

You confused Moon Bat.

Just because I advocate on the behalf of a child to keep it from being murdered as a method of birth control don't mean I am responsible for the welfare of the child.

The welfare of the child is the responsibility of the parents that conceived the child.

You immoral idiotic inbred Moon Bats have no concept of responsibility, do you?