Republicans can’t have it both ways

[HappyJoy]

When did I say I supported banning abortions, tard?

I guess more importantly, when did I say you supported banning abortions, moron.

Twice in this thread

No, you're argument in this thread is that of a pro life lean but I never said you wanted to ban abortions, though given your responses it would be easy for someone to come to that conclusion.

 

[jc456]

You're right, life isn't fair. So, fuck the kid then, right? Nice pro life stance.

Again, shouldn't you be directing that comment to the people making the child? The onus isn't on me or anyone else to determine what happens to the kid or how he gets supported. It's on the parents and their families. Yes, maybe the kid will have a hard childhood. Boo fucking hoo. As I said, life ain't fair. There are millions of children all over the world in far worse conditions than a kid being poor here in America.

And again, when did I say I supported banning abortion?

Yes, they are bad parents, now what?

the child is removed and placed with someone else to care for them. the two parents are charged with neglect. It is happening right now to the parents of 13 kids in californification.

 

[HappyJoy]

You're right, life isn't fair. So, fuck the kid then, right? Nice pro life stance.

explain how you get to that statement loser? call you mr. hypothetical failure.

When will you be joining the real world where none of what you state happens?

I told you it was a hypothetical question before you answered it. You chose to make up excuses to not decide which is worth more a baby or 1000 embryos. Sorry you can't answer the question without being either a hypocrite or an asshole.

and it's flawed. so get a better hypothetical. a freezer is a container, correct?

No.

What would be the point of asking the question if the embryos are already safe?

Now that it has to be explained to you, what's your answer? Don't have one? Not surprised, hypocrite.

it's why your hypothetical is flawed, you stated frozen container. I get to choose what that means. dude, it's your hypothetical, not mine. I would never be so stupid as to make up something like that.

You get to save one or the other, it's a Sophie's choice question.

Do you save the baby or the 1000 embryos, whoever you don't save parishes. Now you know.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

You're right, life isn't fair. So, fuck the kid then, right? Nice pro life stance.

Again, shouldn't you be directing that comment to the people making the child? The onus isn't on me or anyone else to determine what happens to the kid or how he gets supported. It's on the parents and their families. Yes, maybe the kid will have a hard childhood. Boo fucking hoo. As I said, life ain't fair. There are millions of children all over the world in far worse conditions than a kid being poor here in America.

And again, when did I say I supported banning abortion?

Yes, they are bad parents, now what?

What about it?

 

[jc456]

explain how you get to that statement loser? call you mr. hypothetical failure.

When will you be joining the real world where none of what you state happens?

I told you it was a hypothetical question before you answered it. You chose to make up excuses to not decide which is worth more a baby or 1000 embryos. Sorry you can't answer the question without being either a hypocrite or an asshole.

and it's flawed. so get a better hypothetical. a freezer is a container, correct?

No.

What would be the point of asking the question if the embryos are already safe?

Now that it has to be explained to you, what's your answer? Don't have one? Not surprised, hypocrite.

it's why your hypothetical is flawed, you stated frozen container. I get to choose what that means. dude, it's your hypothetical, not mine. I would never be so stupid as to make up something like that.

You get to save one or the other, it's a Sophie's choice question.

Do you save the baby or the 1000 embryos, whoever you don't save parishes. Now you know.

no one needs to save the embryo's fool, that's why your hypothetical is flawed.

 

[HappyJoy]

You're right, life isn't fair. So, fuck the kid then, right? Nice pro life stance.

Again, shouldn't you be directing that comment to the people making the child? The onus isn't on me or anyone else to determine what happens to the kid or how he gets supported. It's on the parents and their families. Yes, maybe the kid will have a hard childhood. Boo fucking hoo. As I said, life ain't fair. There are millions of children all over the world in far worse conditions than a kid being poor here in America.

And again, when did I say I supported banning abortion?

Yes, they are bad parents, now what?

the child is removed and placed with someone else to care for them. the two parents are charged with neglect. It is happening right now to the parents of 13 kids in californification.

Great, who is the someone else? You? Who is going to pay to feed and clothe the child?

 

[HappyJoy]

You're right, life isn't fair. So, fuck the kid then, right? Nice pro life stance.

Again, shouldn't you be directing that comment to the people making the child? The onus isn't on me or anyone else to determine what happens to the kid or how he gets supported. It's on the parents and their families. Yes, maybe the kid will have a hard childhood. Boo fucking hoo. As I said, life ain't fair. There are millions of children all over the world in far worse conditions than a kid being poor here in America.

And again, when did I say I supported banning abortion?

Yes, they are bad parents, now what?

What about it?

There is a child brought into this world that needs money when it comes down to it.

But since you're OK with legal abortion then I guess that settles it.

 

[jc456]

You're right, life isn't fair. So, fuck the kid then, right? Nice pro life stance.

Again, shouldn't you be directing that comment to the people making the child? The onus isn't on me or anyone else to determine what happens to the kid or how he gets supported. It's on the parents and their families. Yes, maybe the kid will have a hard childhood. Boo fucking hoo. As I said, life ain't fair. There are millions of children all over the world in far worse conditions than a kid being poor here in America.

And again, when did I say I supported banning abortion?

Yes, they are bad parents, now what?

the child is removed and placed with someone else to care for them. the two parents are charged with neglect. It is happening right now to the parents of 13 kids in californification.

Great, who is the someone else? You? Who is going to pay to feed and clothe the child?

they're called foster parents. the state provides the child to a foster home. Where are you from that you don't understand that?

 

[emilynghiem]

Republican policy usually just applies to the wealthy. Any other policy that applies to everyone else is just complete non sense.

Republicans can’t expect to outlaw abortion and continue to not do jack shit for kids born to poor single mothers. Basic social services isn’t some radical leftwing idea. They can whine and shame on the mothers for having kids they can’t afford all they want - it still doesn’t change the fact that the kid, you know, exists. What is supposed to happen to this kid born to a home he or she can’t thrive in? Also, if you are actually dumb enough to think women profit off of welfare by having kids then you should just relinquish your right to vote because you’re too stupid to have it. Do republicans not realize how expensive it is to raise a kid? Any government assistance the mom and kid get is a fraction of the overall cost of raising a kid for 18 years.

Dear Billy000
1. given the belief that abortion is murder, just because you don't agree with murdering people for "lack of social support"
doesn't mean you agree to pay for their welfare THROUGH GOVT.

I don't believe you can just kill your full grown offspring, but that doesn't mean GOVT should pay for their care.
There are ADOPTION programs that work to place children with families by personal choice, instead of relying
on Govt to adopt them as wards of the state or welfare recipients.

This isn't either or

2. However I would agree with you that if you are going to let people ban abortions through the state
this opens the door to people banning executions, and yes I would agree that those people who
don't believe in paying for execution should have the option to pay for life imprisonment instead.
And those who don't want to pay for that can pay for executions if they want to (although the
cost per capital case can run $1 million or more in added costs just for the prosecution costs alone, so this tends to be prohibitive)

3. Billy000 what REALLY opened the door for Right to Life to have it "both ways"
is the Democrats did it first --
(a) not only by mandating "right to health care" and FORCING people
to pay for govt regulated insurance that contradicts "freedom of choice".
So basically they want to have "free choice" of abortion and contraception
but they want to FORCE OTHERS to pay for this, which isn't free choice.
You can't force health care through govt and then protest when other taxpayers
reject the terms of reproductive contraception. If you want "free choice"
you have to keep all this OUT OF GOVT so it isn't interfered with by other
taxpayers who don't have the same beliefs and can't be forced to fund them!
(b) imposing LGBT beliefs on schools and businesses, while still demanding
"separation of church and state" when it comes to CHRISTIAN BELIEFS and
practices in public schools and institutions. Again, YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

But that's exactly what LIBERALS AND DEMOCRATS were doing!

The last straw was pushing the LGBT agenda and beliefs through govt and public institutions.

This is what has opened the door for the Christian and Prolife to push THEIR beliefs
through as well!

Otherwise, it would be DISCRIMINATION BY CREED for Govt to ONLY ENDORSE these beliefs:
* right to health care for all
* LGBT beliefs, expression and practices
and not ALSO ENDORSE AND INCLUDE THESE BELIEFS
* right to life for all
* Christian beliefs, expression and practices

Democrats should learn this lesson: if you open the door for govt to include
faith based beliefs such as LGBT for ALL CITIZENS to be REQUIRED TO FOLLOW AND FUND
then you've just opened the door for
ALL FAITH BASED BELIEFS including right to life and Christian prayer as well.

well technically you're not correct. someone on death row is there because they deserved to be there by their actions and options. the unborn child had no options in its life. so your comparison is flawed. Not even in the same book.

Dear jc456
What I'm saying is the right of the people not to be forced to FUND these things against their beliefs is equal.

People have EQUAL RIGHT to demand to DEFUND abortion
as they do to DEFUND the death penalty. They don't have to pay for those programs if those violate their beliefs.

Then the issue remains of who is responsible for funding the ALTERNATIVES
A. in the case of the death penalty,
if the people who believe in it agree to fund it but don't agree or believe in funding rehabilitation and life in prison,
then the people who DO believe in it should be willing to fund that instead.
If you want to call it forcing the WRONGDOERS to pay for their own care,
that's essentially the same thing. Because when they don't have resources for that,
it still comes from the people supporting them which are generally the same anti-death penalty
advocates and churches that believe in funding Restorative Justice instead of Retributive.

B. however with funding either abortion or funding support for the children,
this isn't the case of forcing support "through govt as the only alternative."

What I would say is the equivalent is putting equal conditions
and law enforcement behind BARRING MEN from rape and abuse that otherwise leads to abortion.

If the right to life want to eliminate abortion, they would have to hold men equally responsible.

 

[jc456]

You're right, life isn't fair. So, fuck the kid then, right? Nice pro life stance.

Again, shouldn't you be directing that comment to the people making the child? The onus isn't on me or anyone else to determine what happens to the kid or how he gets supported. It's on the parents and their families. Yes, maybe the kid will have a hard childhood. Boo fucking hoo. As I said, life ain't fair. There are millions of children all over the world in far worse conditions than a kid being poor here in America.

And again, when did I say I supported banning abortion?

Yes, they are bad parents, now what?

What about it?

There is a child brought into this world that needs money when it comes down to it.

But since you're OK with legal abortion then I guess that settles it.

well actually, the child needs grown guardians to care for it.

 

[HappyJoy]

I told you it was a hypothetical question before you answered it. You chose to make up excuses to not decide which is worth more a baby or 1000 embryos. Sorry you can't answer the question without being either a hypocrite or an asshole.

and it's flawed. so get a better hypothetical. a freezer is a container, correct?

No.

What would be the point of asking the question if the embryos are already safe?

Now that it has to be explained to you, what's your answer? Don't have one? Not surprised, hypocrite.

it's why your hypothetical is flawed, you stated frozen container. I get to choose what that means. dude, it's your hypothetical, not mine. I would never be so stupid as to make up something like that.

You get to save one or the other, it's a Sophie's choice question.

Do you save the baby or the 1000 embryos, whoever you don't save parishes. Now you know.

no one needs to save the embryo's fool, that's why your hypothetical is flawed.

No, they are going to parish in the fire, that's why the importance is on making the choice. You obviously are incapable of doing so because even pro lifers know an embryo is not equal to an actual baby.

It's OK, you failed with the best of them.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

When did I say I supported banning abortions, tard?

I guess more importantly, when did I say you supported banning abortions, moron.

Twice in this thread

No, you're argument in this thread is that of a pro life lean but I never said you wanted to ban abortions, though given your responses it would be easy for someone to come to that conclusion.

No, my argument is that your position is intellectually vapid. The idea that because someone opposes the termination of a life (which is exactly what an abortion regardless of what side of the issue you're on) they are now somehow responsible for the child once it's born, while waving any responsibility on that of the people who created it is ridiculous. Actions have consequences. There was a time before 1973 where abortion was illegal in places and you know what? People dealt with it. They got by with help from their family or their friends or they gave the baby up for adoption. It's called personal responsibility, which as I noted before, seems to be a difficult concept for you to understand.

 

[jc456]

Republican policy usually just applies to the wealthy. Any other policy that applies to everyone else is just complete non sense.

Republicans can’t expect to outlaw abortion and continue to not do jack shit for kids born to poor single mothers. Basic social services isn’t some radical leftwing idea. They can whine and shame on the mothers for having kids they can’t afford all they want - it still doesn’t change the fact that the kid, you know, exists. What is supposed to happen to this kid born to a home he or she can’t thrive in? Also, if you are actually dumb enough to think women profit off of welfare by having kids then you should just relinquish your right to vote because you’re too stupid to have it. Do republicans not realize how expensive it is to raise a kid? Any government assistance the mom and kid get is a fraction of the overall cost of raising a kid for 18 years.

Dear Billy000
1. given the belief that abortion is murder, just because you don't agree with murdering people for "lack of social support"
doesn't mean you agree to pay for their welfare THROUGH GOVT.

I don't believe you can just kill your full grown offspring, but that doesn't mean GOVT should pay for their care.
There are ADOPTION programs that work to place children with families by personal choice, instead of relying
on Govt to adopt them as wards of the state or welfare recipients.

This isn't either or

2. However I would agree with you that if you are going to let people ban abortions through the state
this opens the door to people banning executions, and yes I would agree that those people who
don't believe in paying for execution should have the option to pay for life imprisonment instead.
And those who don't want to pay for that can pay for executions if they want to (although the
cost per capital case can run $1 million or more in added costs just for the prosecution costs alone, so this tends to be prohibitive)

3. Billy000 what REALLY opened the door for Right to Life to have it "both ways"
is the Democrats did it first --
(a) not only by mandating "right to health care" and FORCING people
to pay for govt regulated insurance that contradicts "freedom of choice".
So basically they want to have "free choice" of abortion and contraception
but they want to FORCE OTHERS to pay for this, which isn't free choice.
You can't force health care through govt and then protest when other taxpayers
reject the terms of reproductive contraception. If you want "free choice"
you have to keep all this OUT OF GOVT so it isn't interfered with by other
taxpayers who don't have the same beliefs and can't be forced to fund them!
(b) imposing LGBT beliefs on schools and businesses, while still demanding
"separation of church and state" when it comes to CHRISTIAN BELIEFS and
practices in public schools and institutions. Again, YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

But that's exactly what LIBERALS AND DEMOCRATS were doing!

The last straw was pushing the LGBT agenda and beliefs through govt and public institutions.

This is what has opened the door for the Christian and Prolife to push THEIR beliefs
through as well!

Otherwise, it would be DISCRIMINATION BY CREED for Govt to ONLY ENDORSE these beliefs:
* right to health care for all
* LGBT beliefs, expression and practices
and not ALSO ENDORSE AND INCLUDE THESE BELIEFS
* right to life for all
* Christian beliefs, expression and practices

Democrats should learn this lesson: if you open the door for govt to include
faith based beliefs such as LGBT for ALL CITIZENS to be REQUIRED TO FOLLOW AND FUND
then you've just opened the door for
ALL FAITH BASED BELIEFS including right to life and Christian prayer as well.

well technically you're not correct. someone on death row is there because they deserved to be there by their actions and options. the unborn child had no options in its life. so your comparison is flawed. Not even in the same book.

Dear jc456
What I'm saying is the right of the people not to be forced to FUND these things against their beliefs is equal.

People have EQUAL RIGHT to demand to DEFUND abortion
as they do to DEFUND the death penalty. They don't have to pay for those programs if those violate their beliefs.

Then the issue remains of who is responsible for funding the ALTERNATIVES
A. in the case of the death penalty,
if the people who believe in it agree to fund it but don't agree or believe in funding rehabilitation and life in prison,
then the people who DO believe in it should be willing to fund that instead.
If you want to call it forcing the WRONGDOERS to pay for their own care,
that's essentially the same thing. Because when they don't have resources for that,
it still comes from the people supporting them which are generally the same anti-death penalty
advocates and churches that believe in funding Restorative Justice instead of Retributive.

B. however with funding either abortion or funding support for the children,
this isn't the case of forcing support "through govt as the only alternative."

What I would say is the equivalent is putting equal conditions
and law enforcement behind BARRING MEN from rape and abuse that otherwise leads to abortion.

If the right to life want to eliminate abortion, they would have to hold men equally responsible.

no, it's not. the child has no possible options to choose where the inmate incarcerated did. the choice to kill is given in the inmate, to kill a baby because it exists is evil. It isn't who we are as a society.

 

[emilynghiem]

Republican policy usually just applies to the wealthy. Any other policy that applies to everyone else is just complete non sense.

Republicans can’t expect to outlaw abortion and continue to not do jack shit for kids born to poor single mothers. Basic social services isn’t some radical leftwing idea. They can whine and shame on the mothers for having kids they can’t afford all they want - it still doesn’t change the fact that the kid, you know, exists. What is supposed to happen to this kid born to a home he or she can’t thrive in? Also, if you are actually dumb enough to think women profit off of welfare by having kids then you should just relinquish your right to vote because you’re too stupid to have it. Do republicans not realize how expensive it is to raise a kid? Any government assistance the mom and kid get is a fraction of the overall cost of raising a kid for 18 years.

They have to stop complaining about the cost of social services to stop being hypocrites.

danielpalos
It's totally different in cost and effectiveness of services
when comparing private programs to government welfare.

It is NOT hypocritical to criticize and reject GOVERNMENT run programs
because you believe COMMUNITY based charity programs are superior,
more cost effective, sustainable, accountable and transparent by being less
bureaucratic, and do a better job helping recipients with their personal situations
which govt is not designed to handle.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

You're right, life isn't fair. So, fuck the kid then, right? Nice pro life stance.

Again, shouldn't you be directing that comment to the people making the child? The onus isn't on me or anyone else to determine what happens to the kid or how he gets supported. It's on the parents and their families. Yes, maybe the kid will have a hard childhood. Boo fucking hoo. As I said, life ain't fair. There are millions of children all over the world in far worse conditions than a kid being poor here in America.

And again, when did I say I supported banning abortion?

Yes, they are bad parents, now what?

What about it?

There is a child brought into this world that needs money when it comes down to it.

But since you're OK with legal abortion then I guess that settles it.

I never said I was okay with abortion, however, I am pro-choice.

 

[emilynghiem]

Republican policy usually just applies to the wealthy. Any other policy that applies to everyone else is just complete non sense.

Republicans can’t expect to outlaw abortion and continue to not do jack shit for kids born to poor single mothers. Basic social services isn’t some radical leftwing idea. They can whine and shame on the mothers for having kids they can’t afford all they want - it still doesn’t change the fact that the kid, you know, exists. What is supposed to happen to this kid born to a home he or she can’t thrive in? Also, if you are actually dumb enough to think women profit off of welfare by having kids then you should just relinquish your right to vote because you’re too stupid to have it. Do republicans not realize how expensive it is to raise a kid? Any government assistance the mom and kid get is a fraction of the overall cost of raising a kid for 18 years.

Dear Billy000
1. given the belief that abortion is murder, just because you don't agree with murdering people for "lack of social support"
doesn't mean you agree to pay for their welfare THROUGH GOVT.

I don't believe you can just kill your full grown offspring, but that doesn't mean GOVT should pay for their care.
There are ADOPTION programs that work to place children with families by personal choice, instead of relying
on Govt to adopt them as wards of the state or welfare recipients.

This isn't either or

2. However I would agree with you that if you are going to let people ban abortions through the state
this opens the door to people banning executions, and yes I would agree that those people who
don't believe in paying for execution should have the option to pay for life imprisonment instead.
And those who don't want to pay for that can pay for executions if they want to (although the
cost per capital case can run $1 million or more in added costs just for the prosecution costs alone, so this tends to be prohibitive)

3. Billy000 what REALLY opened the door for Right to Life to have it "both ways"
is the Democrats did it first --
(a) not only by mandating "right to health care" and FORCING people
to pay for govt regulated insurance that contradicts "freedom of choice".
So basically they want to have "free choice" of abortion and contraception
but they want to FORCE OTHERS to pay for this, which isn't free choice.
You can't force health care through govt and then protest when other taxpayers
reject the terms of reproductive contraception. If you want "free choice"
you have to keep all this OUT OF GOVT so it isn't interfered with by other
taxpayers who don't have the same beliefs and can't be forced to fund them!
(b) imposing LGBT beliefs on schools and businesses, while still demanding
"separation of church and state" when it comes to CHRISTIAN BELIEFS and
practices in public schools and institutions. Again, YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

But that's exactly what LIBERALS AND DEMOCRATS were doing!

The last straw was pushing the LGBT agenda and beliefs through govt and public institutions.

This is what has opened the door for the Christian and Prolife to push THEIR beliefs
through as well!

Otherwise, it would be DISCRIMINATION BY CREED for Govt to ONLY ENDORSE these beliefs:
* right to health care for all
* LGBT beliefs, expression and practices
and not ALSO ENDORSE AND INCLUDE THESE BELIEFS
* right to life for all
* Christian beliefs, expression and practices

Democrats should learn this lesson: if you open the door for govt to include
faith based beliefs such as LGBT for ALL CITIZENS to be REQUIRED TO FOLLOW AND FUND
then you've just opened the door for
ALL FAITH BASED BELIEFS including right to life and Christian prayer as well.

well technically you're not correct. someone on death row is there because they deserved to be there by their actions and options. the unborn child had no options in its life. so your comparison is flawed. Not even in the same book.

Dear jc456
What I'm saying is the right of the people not to be forced to FUND these things against their beliefs is equal.

People have EQUAL RIGHT to demand to DEFUND abortion
as they do to DEFUND the death penalty. They don't have to pay for those programs if those violate their beliefs.

Then the issue remains of who is responsible for funding the ALTERNATIVES
A. in the case of the death penalty,
if the people who believe in it agree to fund it but don't agree or believe in funding rehabilitation and life in prison,
then the people who DO believe in it should be willing to fund that instead.
If you want to call it forcing the WRONGDOERS to pay for their own care,
that's essentially the same thing. Because when they don't have resources for that,
it still comes from the people supporting them which are generally the same anti-death penalty
advocates and churches that believe in funding Restorative Justice instead of Retributive.

B. however with funding either abortion or funding support for the children,
this isn't the case of forcing support "through govt as the only alternative."

What I would say is the equivalent is putting equal conditions
and law enforcement behind BARRING MEN from rape and abuse that otherwise leads to abortion.

If the right to life want to eliminate abortion, they would have to hold men equally responsible.

no, it's not. the child has no possible options to choose where the inmate incarcerated did. the choice to kill is given in the inmate, to kill a baby because it exists is evil. It isn't who we are as a society.

I think we are talking about two different things.
I am not talking about the child vs. the offender.

I am talking about the BELIEFS about FUNDING these two things:
* funding abortion
* funding executions

The person involved in these actions can be totally different situations,
but the BELIEFS still remain a personal choice of funding.

For example jc456
gun rights, voting rights, abortion rights, marriage rights.
NONE of these are the same situation
but the common factor in ALL of them is that
people have conflicting POLITICAL BELIEFS about them.

So regardless of the CONTENT OF THE CREED
the government should not be discriminating against one sides' beliefs or another.

Another example jc456
* LGBT beliefs
* Christian beliefs
These are not the same by any definition.
In fact LGBT beliefs are argued as a disorder while Christian beliefs are behind humanitarian outreach that has saved lives.
What they have in common is they are both
FAITH BASED BELIEFS
and thus by government acting neutrally regarding the beliefs people have as individuals
these BELIEFS should be treated the same

Their content is another matter, and I am happy to discuss that further.
But in terms of NOT FORCING PEOPLE TO FUND BIASED
POLICIES AGAINST THEIR BELIEFS, this applies equally to
* abortion
* executions
* marriage laws
* transgender identity and sex changes
etc.
NONE OF THESE ARE THE SAME
but they ALL involve BELIEFS that
Government CANNOT force people to change or fund against their will.
If people don't consent to fund such policies, they have the right to refuse
and to fund alternatives.

 

[MarcATL]

I never said I was okay with abortion, however, I am pro-choice.

Like this guy...



And most other sane Americans, myself included.

Republicans aren't pro-life, their pro-forced birth and pro-authoritarian.

 

[jc456]

Republican policy usually just applies to the wealthy. Any other policy that applies to everyone else is just complete non sense.

Republicans can’t expect to outlaw abortion and continue to not do jack shit for kids born to poor single mothers. Basic social services isn’t some radical leftwing idea. They can whine and shame on the mothers for having kids they can’t afford all they want - it still doesn’t change the fact that the kid, you know, exists. What is supposed to happen to this kid born to a home he or she can’t thrive in? Also, if you are actually dumb enough to think women profit off of welfare by having kids then you should just relinquish your right to vote because you’re too stupid to have it. Do republicans not realize how expensive it is to raise a kid? Any government assistance the mom and kid get is a fraction of the overall cost of raising a kid for 18 years.

Dear Billy000
1. given the belief that abortion is murder, just because you don't agree with murdering people for "lack of social support"
doesn't mean you agree to pay for their welfare THROUGH GOVT.

I don't believe you can just kill your full grown offspring, but that doesn't mean GOVT should pay for their care.
There are ADOPTION programs that work to place children with families by personal choice, instead of relying
on Govt to adopt them as wards of the state or welfare recipients.

This isn't either or

2. However I would agree with you that if you are going to let people ban abortions through the state
this opens the door to people banning executions, and yes I would agree that those people who
don't believe in paying for execution should have the option to pay for life imprisonment instead.
And those who don't want to pay for that can pay for executions if they want to (although the
cost per capital case can run $1 million or more in added costs just for the prosecution costs alone, so this tends to be prohibitive)

3. Billy000 what REALLY opened the door for Right to Life to have it "both ways"
is the Democrats did it first --
(a) not only by mandating "right to health care" and FORCING people
to pay for govt regulated insurance that contradicts "freedom of choice".
So basically they want to have "free choice" of abortion and contraception
but they want to FORCE OTHERS to pay for this, which isn't free choice.
You can't force health care through govt and then protest when other taxpayers
reject the terms of reproductive contraception. If you want "free choice"
you have to keep all this OUT OF GOVT so it isn't interfered with by other
taxpayers who don't have the same beliefs and can't be forced to fund them!
(b) imposing LGBT beliefs on schools and businesses, while still demanding
"separation of church and state" when it comes to CHRISTIAN BELIEFS and
practices in public schools and institutions. Again, YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

But that's exactly what LIBERALS AND DEMOCRATS were doing!

The last straw was pushing the LGBT agenda and beliefs through govt and public institutions.

This is what has opened the door for the Christian and Prolife to push THEIR beliefs
through as well!

Otherwise, it would be DISCRIMINATION BY CREED for Govt to ONLY ENDORSE these beliefs:
* right to health care for all
* LGBT beliefs, expression and practices
and not ALSO ENDORSE AND INCLUDE THESE BELIEFS
* right to life for all
* Christian beliefs, expression and practices

Democrats should learn this lesson: if you open the door for govt to include
faith based beliefs such as LGBT for ALL CITIZENS to be REQUIRED TO FOLLOW AND FUND
then you've just opened the door for
ALL FAITH BASED BELIEFS including right to life and Christian prayer as well.

well technically you're not correct. someone on death row is there because they deserved to be there by their actions and options. the unborn child had no options in its life. so your comparison is flawed. Not even in the same book.

Dear jc456
What I'm saying is the right of the people not to be forced to FUND these things against their beliefs is equal.

People have EQUAL RIGHT to demand to DEFUND abortion
as they do to DEFUND the death penalty. They don't have to pay for those programs if those violate their beliefs.

Then the issue remains of who is responsible for funding the ALTERNATIVES
A. in the case of the death penalty,
if the people who believe in it agree to fund it but don't agree or believe in funding rehabilitation and life in prison,
then the people who DO believe in it should be willing to fund that instead.
If you want to call it forcing the WRONGDOERS to pay for their own care,
that's essentially the same thing. Because when they don't have resources for that,
it still comes from the people supporting them which are generally the same anti-death penalty
advocates and churches that believe in funding Restorative Justice instead of Retributive.

B. however with funding either abortion or funding support for the children,
this isn't the case of forcing support "through govt as the only alternative."

What I would say is the equivalent is putting equal conditions
and law enforcement behind BARRING MEN from rape and abuse that otherwise leads to abortion.

If the right to life want to eliminate abortion, they would have to hold men equally responsible.

no, it's not. the child has no possible options to choose where the inmate incarcerated did. the choice to kill is given in the inmate, to kill a baby because it exists is evil. It isn't who we are as a society.

I think we are talking about two different things.
I am not talking about the child vs. the offender.

I am talking about the BELIEFS about FUNDING these two things:
* funding abortion
* funding executions

The person involved in these actions can be totally different situations,
but the BELIEFS still remain a personal choice of funding.

For example jc456
gun rights, voting rights, abortion rights, marriage rights.
NONE of these are the same situation
but the common factor in ALL of them is that
people have conflicting POLITICAL BELIEFS about them.

So regardless of the CONTENT OF THE CREED
the government should not be discriminating against one sides' beliefs or another.

Another example jc456
* LGBT beliefs
* Christian beliefs
These are not the same by any definition.
In fact LGBT beliefs are argued as a disorder while Christian beliefs are behind humanitarian outreach that has saved lives.
What they have in common is they are both
FAITH BASED BELIEFS
and thus by government acting neutrally regarding the beliefs people have as individuals
these BELIEFS should be treated the same

Their content is another matter, and I am happy to discuss that further.
But in terms of NOT FORCING PEOPLE TO FUND BIASED
POLICIES AGAINST THEIR BELIEFS, this applies equally to
* abortion
* executions
* marriage laws
* transgender identity and sex changes
etc.
NONE OF THESE ARE THE SAME
but they ALL involve BELIEFS that
Government CANNOT force people to change or fund against their will.
If people don't consent to fund such policies, they have the right to refuse
and to fund alternatives.

me too. people have different feelings with regard to killing innocence for killing innocence, vs killing a Manson inmate type for killing innocent people. I'd give my left nut to see Manson fry like a french fried twinkie, vs paying a couple who had sex and needs to pay for getting rid of their offspring. nope.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear HappyJoy and Dont Taz Me Bro
I also align with DTMB that I am prochoice.
And this does not mean approving abortion or abortion being legal.
I oppose criminalizing the women for it, but believe in
100% prevention of abortion and abuse by stopping
MEN (and women) from abusing relationships and sex.

This cannot be done through govt, so that's why I support
Prolife outreach and programs that work toward preventing
abuse and abortion by education, counseling and support.

I prefer if both prolife and prochoice advocates meet and
put together AGREED plans for reducing and eliminating abortion
until it is completely prevented 100%. Instead of fighting over
govt controls and legislation, I urge advocates on both sides to
invest in PREVENTION, and give equal tax breaks and matching
funds to programs like The Nurturing Network www.nurturingnetwork.org
instead of fighting over funding for Planned Parenthood without
giving equal options to fund prolife programs that help women.

If liberal prochoice feminists are serious about stopping abuse
of women, we should support not only Prolife programs to help
women but also promote medical research into spiritual healing
that is used to treat and cure the causes of abuse, so this helps
to screen out criminally ill dangerous abusers, addicts, killers and rapists
BEFORE they commit physical crimes.

A lot of these solutions are coming from the very Christian
prolife and rightwing advocates and organizations currently
opposed and censored in the media from sharing resources
that are critical for 100% prevention of rape, murder and crime.

There are whole towns that have reported eradicating crime
among their populations by reintroducing mass prayer and
getting everyone help for counseling ministry to solve the
root causes of poverty, crime, addiction, abuse and oppression.

Instead of fighting politically between prolife and prochoice
factions, we would do better investing in solutions and programs
that prove to be the most cost effective in preventing abuse and abortion.

We are never going to agree on laws affecting and punishing women more than men.

But the programs outside of govt that do the best job in prevention
help both men and women, as well as children, without imposing conflicts.
We should focus there instead, and prevent abuse and abortion in the first place.

 

[night_son]

People who support their children get a job.
If you can screw, you can work...

Thank you. This is the greatest fear of the American Left . . . the fear that people will refuse to be victims and will take full responsibility for their own actions. Without a majority class of victims to exploit for political gain like fleeced sheep, every last ideological platform of the modern Democratic Party crumbles away into dust.

You think the Left fear people taking responsibility and working?! Are you high? Perhaps they just haven’t seen the Magic fairy dust that makes all these people go do that. In the mean time while youre looking for your magic there are real problems with poverty and homelessness and crime that need to be dealt with.

No. You are doubling down on the cult of victims talking point loop while attempting to martyr yourself for masses of people who need nothing from you in order to make their own way in life, as most adult Americans are more than capable of doing. Fear not, we understand. We understand that you and your ilk are incapable of not repeating the sacrosanct talking points of your masters; you're psychologically incapable of thinking for yourself. I presented a rational, logical and commonly know/accepted for centuries solution to the meat of the OP: responsible parents work hard to support their families. Regardless, you were unable to defy your ideologue masters' brainwashing and acknowledge that. Twenty-five years ago such behavior would have been frightening, outside of a social sciences lecture hall. Today? Not so much. It's normative reaction from the below average postmodernist automaton.