When arguing against SNAP for single mothers, why do repubs ignore the children themselves?

[Coloradomtnman]

Because you are a moral being? Well, not you personally, obviously; by "you are" I meant "one is".

So you get to determine morals for someone else? Strange that, as a Conservative, when I've tried to express my moral beliefs on other issues I'm told to butt out.

Deflection.

Are you claiming that you wouldn't feel happiness if a small portion of the taxes you pay went to feed needy children?

I feel happiness when I personally give to those that need. I don't need a middleman to take the credit.
Why?
Because despite my paying nearly 40% of my income to federal, state and local taxes, those in need do not appreciate my efforts on their behalf. Instead, they say I am greedy and not willing to pay my fair share.

If you gave someone down on their luck ten dollars, what feelings would you have if that person said "ten bucks? You cheap greedy asshole!"

True altruism requires no gratitude.

I assume you served in The Corps. I did, too. Not everyone appreciates our service. That doesn't mean I only served those who show me gratitude for it. I appreciate it when people thank me, even if I saw no action and think others are more deserving of that gratitude, but my service was to defend everyone, not just most Amricans.

I did not say I expect gratitude. I don't.

However, I DONT expect criticism for what I give.

So I ask again....what if you gave 10 dollars to a man down on his luck and he said to you "only 10 dollars? What a greedy selfish asshole you are".....

I'd think he was an asshole, and hopefully he'll get something to eat.

But this thread is about the children of that asshole, not the asshole.

 

[BluesLegend]

Fact is, Democrats intentionally set up the conditions that caused a family or Single-mother to have to apply for SNAP in the first place.

Example: California, New York, New Jersey, all are states where the cost of living is extremely high but wages are suppressed because of a massive influx of illegals. It's no small wonder when Democrats are bringing in millions of new unskilled labor while the people that live in the state can't find a decent paying job. Add to that the fact that taxes and the cost of living in those states are jacked up extremely high. It's no small wonder that if someone who lives in California who makes $60,000 a year qualifies for food stamps whereas if they lived in a fly-over state they could make ends meet without having to apply for food stamps.

Deflection.

What does this have to do with the OP?

It has everything to do with it.

Isn't nice that the Liar In Chief gets to say with a straight face that the economy is doing great yet 43 million people need food stamps and more are going to need it if he has his way.

Wait, if the economy is roaring back and unemployment is low and Obama is farting daisies out his ass how come 43 million people need food stamps? That seems fishy to me.

 

[Conservative65]

of all the social welfare programs------I consider SNAP to be
the most justifiable------we should all be happy that our country
provides food for ALL

Why should I be happy that the portion of taxes taken from me that can go to my kids goes to someone else?

Because you are a moral being? Well, not you personally, obviously; by "you are" I meant "one is".

So you get to determine morals for someone else? Strange that, as a Conservative, when I've tried to express my moral beliefs on other issues I'm told to butt out.

Deflection.

Are you claiming that you wouldn't feel happiness if a small portion of the taxes you pay went to feed needy children?

I feel happiness when I personally give to those that need. I don't need a middleman to take the credit.
Why?
Because despite my paying nearly 40% of my income to federal, state and local taxes, those in need do not appreciate my efforts on their behalf. Instead, they say I am greedy and not willing to pay my fair share.

If you gave someone down on their luck ten dollars, what feelings would you have if that person said "ten bucks? You cheap greedy asshole!"

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and the man given credit for having contributed more to the principles in the Constitution than anyone else, said "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." It's strange the bleeding hearts seem to find something in it that Madison couldn't find and he wrote it.

 

[Conservative65]

So you get to determine morals for someone else? Strange that, as a Conservative, when I've tried to express my moral beliefs on other issues I'm told to butt out.

Deflection.

Are you claiming that you wouldn't feel happiness if a small portion of the taxes you pay went to feed needy children?

I feel happiness when I personally give to those that need. I don't need a middleman to take the credit.
Why?
Because despite my paying nearly 40% of my income to federal, state and local taxes, those in need do not appreciate my efforts on their behalf. Instead, they say I am greedy and not willing to pay my fair share.

If you gave someone down on their luck ten dollars, what feelings would you have if that person said "ten bucks? You cheap greedy asshole!"

True altruism requires no gratitude.

I assume you served in The Corps. I did, too. Not everyone appreciates our service. That doesn't mean I only served those who show me gratitude for it. I appreciate it when people thank me, even if I saw no action and think others are more deserving of that gratitude, but my service was to defend everyone, not just most Amricans.

I did not say I expect gratitude. I don't.

However, I DONT expect criticism for what I give.

So I ask again....what if you gave 10 dollars to a man down on his luck and he said to you "only 10 dollars? What a greedy selfish asshole you are".....

I'd think he was an asshole, and hopefully he'll get something to eat.

But this thread is about the children of that asshole, not the asshole.

Then it's about that asshole. He can't meet his own responsibilities then calls someone else greedy for not doing as much for him as he thinks needs to be done.

 

[jknowgood]

They say "well she shouldn't have had kids in the first place therefore she shouldn't get any ."

Of course as always republicans reason the way mentally retarded people do so you must remind them the kids themselves benefit from this welfare. It also doesn't help that low wage jobs largely outnumber higher wage jobs so this is a difficult situation for this family as you could imagine.

So repubs, shouldn't those kids born to a broke caregiver deserve food stamps assistance? After all, 83% of food stamp funding goes to households with at least one dependent living there.

Obama has been in office fo six years, and he has made things worse.

Deflection.

And if that were the case, shouldn't you support the children who have suffered under his leadership?

Because of Obama's failures I should pay more? How about prosecuting the one's abusing the system. I saw on the news last night where people were using snap cards to buy drugs, alcohol, and at strip clubs. Millions, why not take that away and give it to the one's that need it. We spend enough on welfare. Also give vouchers for education, so the children won't end up like their parents.

 

[Conservative65]

Fact is, Democrats intentionally set up the conditions that caused a family or Single-mother to have to apply for SNAP in the first place.

Example: California, New York, New Jersey, all are states where the cost of living is extremely high but wages are suppressed because of a massive influx of illegals. It's no small wonder when Democrats are bringing in millions of new unskilled labor while the people that live in the state can't find a decent paying job. Add to that the fact that taxes and the cost of living in those states are jacked up extremely high. It's no small wonder that if someone who lives in California who makes $60,000 a year qualifies for food stamps whereas if they lived in a fly-over state they could make ends meet without having to apply for food stamps.

Deflection.

What does this have to do with the OP?

It has everything to do with it.

Isn't nice that the Liar In Chief gets to say with a straight face that the economy is doing great yet 43 million people need food stamps and more are going to need it if he has his way.

Wait, if the economy is roaring back and unemployment is low and Obama is farting daisies out his ass how come 43 million people need food stamps? That seems fishy to me.

The left will say the jobs created don't pay enough. Interesting how they'll say the jobs are crappy but take credit for having created crappy jobs as if that's a good things.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

By and large republicans don't give a fuck about anything not actively involved in earning a profit for some plutocrat.

By and large, bleeding heart Liberals don't mind telling the rest of us to butt out of a woman's choice of what she does with her body, having kids being one of those choice, then expecting the rest of us to support the results of that choice when the woman can't do it.

Deflection.

This isn't about abortion or forced charity. The state has a compelling interest in the welfare of children. I think society has a moral interest as well. Don't you?

I didn't mention abortion. I mentioned choice and choosing to having kids is as much of a choice a woman can make with her body as having an abortion.

What I think is that people like you can't determine my morals.

You may be right. A moral person, I think, couldn't determine your morals.

Your problem is that think it's OK for you to determine where I should stand on this issue. I'd be wiling to bet that if I told a woman it's not moral to kill the unintended result of her choice to have sex, you'd tell me to butt out.

No, because you have a moral right to your opinion.

One of the reasons I am not pro-life is because of the moral dilemma between aborting a fetus and forcing women to carry pregnancies to term. How does one enforce anti-abortion laws? Imprisoning women who may abort? Strapping them to gurneys until they give birth? What about the men who are equally responsible for that pregnancy? Send them to labor depots?

Your position fits the stereotype of conservatives who care about children until they're born, but then not caring after they've been born.

 

[Conservative65]

Why should I be happy that the portion of taxes taken from me that can go to my kids goes to someone else?

Because you are a moral being? Well, not you personally, obviously; by "you are" I meant "one is".

So you get to determine morals for someone else? Strange that, as a Conservative, when I've tried to express my moral beliefs on other issues I'm told to butt out.

Deflection.

Are you claiming that you wouldn't feel happiness if a small portion of the taxes you pay went to feed needy children?

I'd feel happiness if you bleeding hearts would voluntarily do with your own money what you demand the rest of us be forced to do on this matter. The government need not be involved. If people like you would actually go out and do with your own money what you find for the rest of us to do with ours, the problem would be solved. It won't happen because it would mean you would actually have to do it rather than talk about it being done.

If we all stopped paying that small portion in taxes that goes to SNAP, WIC, and other social safety services and donated it to just charities that help needy children, it would not stop people from having kids who shouldn't and taking advantage of these charities.

The state has a compelling interest in the welfare of children. Otherwise we would have no Child Protective Services.

If you bleeding hearts pooled your own money together and personally gave to those you say deserve your money to the level you claim compassion, taxes wouldn't need to be taken for such things. Even it that didn't stop people from having kids, at least they'd be abusing your money and I could care less because it's YOUR money.

 

[Conservative65]

By and large, bleeding heart Liberals don't mind telling the rest of us to butt out of a woman's choice of what she does with her body, having kids being one of those choice, then expecting the rest of us to support the results of that choice when the woman can't do it.

Deflection.

This isn't about abortion or forced charity. The state has a compelling interest in the welfare of children. I think society has a moral interest as well. Don't you?

I didn't mention abortion. I mentioned choice and choosing to having kids is as much of a choice a woman can make with her body as having an abortion.

What I think is that people like you can't determine my morals.

You may be right. A moral person, I think, couldn't determine your morals.

Your problem is that think it's OK for you to determine where I should stand on this issue. I'd be wiling to bet that if I told a woman it's not moral to kill the unintended result of her choice to have sex, you'd tell me to butt out.

No, because you have a moral right to your opinion.

One of the reasons I am not pro-life is because of the moral dilemma between aborting a fetus and forcing women to carry pregnancies to term. How does one enforce anti-abortion laws? Imprisoning women who may abort? Strapping them to gurneys until they give birth? What about the men who are equally responsible for that pregnancy? Send them to labor depots?

Your position fits the stereotype of conservatives who care about children until they're born, but then not caring after they've been born.

If those men equally responsible for creating that child would do his damn job, the rest of us woulnd't be forced to do it for him.

Your position fits the typical Liberal mindset that someone should have the freedom to make a choice yet not be held responsible for the results of it. I'm willing to give women whatever choice they want with their bodies as long as when those choices can't be funded by the one making it, I'm not forced to pay for something I was told to butt out of when the choice was being made. I ask for no more choice to say no than she asks for help to fund a choice she made.

 

[mudwhistle]

Fact is, Democrats intentionally set up the conditions that caused a family or Single-mother to have to apply for SNAP in the first place.

Example: California, New York, New Jersey, all are states where the cost of living is extremely high but wages are suppressed because of a massive influx of illegals. It's no small wonder when Democrats are bringing in millions of new unskilled labor while the people that live in the state can't find a decent paying job. Add to that the fact that taxes and the cost of living in those states are jacked up extremely high. It's no small wonder that if someone who lives in California who makes $60,000 a year qualifies for food stamps whereas if they lived in a fly-over state they could make ends meet without having to apply for food stamps.

Deflection.

What does this have to do with the OP?

It has everything to do with it.

Isn't nice that the Liar In Chief gets to say with a straight face that the economy is doing great yet 43 million people need food stamps and more are going to need it if he has his way.

Wait, if the economy is roaring back and unemployment is low and Obama is farting daisies out his ass how come 43 million people need food stamps? That seems fishy to me.

Probably because it's a pack of lies.

 

[Conservative65]

Because you are a moral being? Well, not you personally, obviously; by "you are" I meant "one is".

So you get to determine morals for someone else? Strange that, as a Conservative, when I've tried to express my moral beliefs on other issues I'm told to butt out.

Deflection.

Are you claiming that you wouldn't feel happiness if a small portion of the taxes you pay went to feed needy children?

I feel happiness when I personally give to those that need. I don't need a middleman to take the credit.
Why?
Because despite my paying nearly 40% of my income to federal, state and local taxes, those in need do not appreciate my efforts on their behalf. Instead, they say I am greedy and not willing to pay my fair share.

If you gave someone down on their luck ten dollars, what feelings would you have if that person said "ten bucks? You cheap greedy asshole!"

True altruism requires no gratitude.

I assume you served in The Corps. I did, too. Not everyone appreciates our service. That doesn't mean I only served those who show me gratitude for it. I appreciate it when people thank me, even if I saw no action and think others are more deserving of that gratitude, but my service was to defend everyone, not just most Amricans.

I did not say I expect gratitude. I don't.

However, I DONT expect criticism for what I give.

So I ask again....what if you gave 10 dollars to a man down on his luck and he said to you "only 10 dollars? What a greedy selfish asshole you are".....

You shouldn't get criticism if you give money to help someone. Someone that would criticize me for having only given them 10 dollars wouldn't get that. Perhaps they think nothing is more than less of an amount than they think they deserve.

 

[mudwhistle]

By and large, bleeding heart Liberals don't mind telling the rest of us to butt out of a woman's choice of what she does with her body, having kids being one of those choice, then expecting the rest of us to support the results of that choice when the woman can't do it.

Deflection.

This isn't about abortion or forced charity. The state has a compelling interest in the welfare of children. I think society has a moral interest as well. Don't you?

I didn't mention abortion. I mentioned choice and choosing to having kids is as much of a choice a woman can make with her body as having an abortion.

What I think is that people like you can't determine my morals.

You may be right. A moral person, I think, couldn't determine your morals.

Your problem is that think it's OK for you to determine where I should stand on this issue. I'd be wiling to bet that if I told a woman it's not moral to kill the unintended result of her choice to have sex, you'd tell me to butt out.

No, because you have a moral right to your opinion.

One of the reasons I am not pro-life is because of the moral dilemma between aborting a fetus and forcing women to carry pregnancies to term. How does one enforce anti-abortion laws? Imprisoning women who may abort? Strapping them to gurneys until they give birth? What about the men who are equally responsible for that pregnancy? Send them to labor depots?

Your position fits the stereotype of conservatives who care about children until they're born, but then not caring after they've been born.

Abortion should be the last option, instead it's the first option. Did you know that some in the administration believe there are too many people on the planet and they feel that removing a third of them is essential to prevent Global Warming?

 

[zeke]

Explain to me why it's OK to take from MY children then claim it's wrong that I want what I've earned to go to the ones I choose not the ones you choose for me.

If you think the money that can go to my children should be taken to go to someone else's, personally come get it. If you aren't man enough, fuck off.

Utt ohh. Look at you getting all up on your hind legs and being a man. Calling someone out on the 'Net makes you a what.........a real big man eh?

To bad you aren't "man" enough to be both a provider for your kids and an individual that makes enough money that they don't begrudge a little of their tax dollars going to feed hungry kids.

You know why I can do both? Give of my own and not begrudge that my tax dollars helps others? One, because I am successful enough that spending those tax dollars don't hurt me. And two because I have empathy.
As a kid I was on the receiving end of "welfare". Wasn't my fault that I had a drunk for a dad who had a hard time keeping a job. Wasn't even my moms fault. She was doing the best she could. So yea, when those boxes of food would appear, I was glad to see them. I liked to eat. We even had church boxes of food. And a landlord that had a conscience as well.

But this was in the day before assholes like you dominated the "conversation" about how poor people had only them selves to blame and if their kids are hungry, then fuck those kids. The parents should have thought of that before they had kids blah blah blah.

Like I said earlier, you are an asshole and a failure as a parent.
btw. I raised three. Almost got em all through college now. They never went hungry or suffered any because my tax dollars went to help others. I and my wife have had enough success that we don't have to whine and bitch like you do about "taking dollars away from my kids". If you are that fucking broke, maybe you should have thought twice about having kids in the first place.

 

[Conservative65]

Why should I be happy that the portion of taxes taken from me that can go to my kids goes to someone else?

Because you are a moral being? Well, not you personally, obviously; by "you are" I meant "one is".

So you get to determine morals for someone else? Strange that, as a Conservative, when I've tried to express my moral beliefs on other issues I'm told to butt out.

Deflection.

Are you claiming that you wouldn't feel happiness if a small portion of the taxes you pay went to feed needy children?

I feel happiness when I personally give to those that need. I don't need a middleman to take the credit.
Why?
Because despite my paying nearly 40% of my income to federal, state and local taxes, those in need do not appreciate my efforts on their behalf. Instead, they say I am greedy and not willing to pay my fair share.

If you gave someone down on their luck ten dollars, what feelings would you have if that person said "ten bucks? You cheap greedy asshole!"

True altruism requires no gratitude.

I assume you served in The Corps. I did, too. Not everyone appreciates our service. That doesn't mean I only served those who show me gratitude for it. I appreciate it when people thank me, even if I saw no action and think others are more deserving of that gratitude, but my service was to defend everyone, not just most Amricans.

When someone that has no money to buy food gets 10 dollars, he/she should shut the fuck up about it not being enough unless they think getting nothing is more than getting 10 dollars.

 

[Conservative65]

Explain to me why it's OK to take from MY children then claim it's wrong that I want what I've earned to go to the ones I choose not the ones you choose for me.

If you think the money that can go to my children should be taken to go to someone else's, personally come get it. If you aren't man enough, fuck off.

Utt ohh. Look at you getting all up on your hind legs and being a man. Calling someone out on the 'Net makes you a what.........a real big man eh?

To bad you aren't "man" enough to be both a provider for your kids and an individual that makes enough money that they don't begrudge a little of their tax dollars going to feed hungry kids.

You know why I can do both? Give of my own and not begrudge that my tax dollars helps others? One, because I am successful enough that spending those tax dollars don't hurt me. And two because I have empathy.
As a kid I was on the receiving end of "welfare". Wasn't my fault that I had a drunk for a dad who had a hard time keeping a job. Wasn't even my moms fault. She was doing the best she could. So yea, when those boxes of food would appear, I was glad to see them. I liked to eat. We even had church boxes of food. And a landlord that had a conscience as well.

But this was in the day before assholes like you dominated the "conversation" about how poor people had only them selves to blame and if their kids are hungry, then fuck those kids. The parents should have thought of that before they had kids blah blah blah.

Like I said earlier, you are an asshole and a failure as a parent.
btw. I raised three. Almost got em all through college now. They never went hungry or suffered any because my tax dollars went to help others. I and my wife have had enough success that we don't have to whine and bitch like you do about "taking dollars away from my kids". If you are that fucking broke, maybe you should have thought twice about having kids in the first place.

I've offered you a challenge. Refusing to accept it makes you a pussy.

I'm an man enough to make enough to support my kids and then plenty more. That's a fact proven by the fact that the government comes to me demanding I support someone else's kids.

If the government's taking it from you, you aren't giving it asshole. That involves a voluntary action not a mandate.

So as a kid, someone else did for you what the man your mother screwed to produce you wouldn't? You want to say kids in those situation shouldn't be help responsible for what their parents don't do yet you're willing to take from mine what they didn't do.

My kids aren't broke. It isn't that I can't provide for them to a high level. The amount taken in taxes is irrelevant. That it is taken is relevant. I wouldn't expect someone that is a by product of an unemployable drunk that grew up the son of a leech to understand that.

 

[Conservative65]

They say "well she shouldn't have had kids in the first place therefore she shouldn't get any ."

Of course as always republicans reason the way mentally retarded people do so you must remind them the kids themselves benefit from this welfare. It also doesn't help that low wage jobs largely outnumber higher wage jobs so this is a difficult situation for this family as you could imagine.

So repubs, shouldn't those kids born to a broke caregiver deserve food stamps assistance? After all, 83% of food stamp funding goes to households with at least one dependent living there.

First, there is truth to that statement, "She, he or THAT FAMILY shouldn't have them before they can afford them."

Second, you are lying about Republicans stating they are against food stamps for the single mothers. Nice dishonest red herring. They are against food stamp fraud. We should all be against it. Those programs should be available for people who need and use them!

The problem I have is when I see someone using them because they've claimed they can't afford to buy their own food using cash money in a separate transaction to buy needs such as beer and cigarettes.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Deflection.

This isn't about abortion or forced charity. The state has a compelling interest in the welfare of children. I think society has a moral interest as well. Don't you?

I didn't mention abortion. I mentioned choice and choosing to having kids is as much of a choice a woman can make with her body as having an abortion.

What I think is that people like you can't determine my morals.

You may be right. A moral person, I think, couldn't determine your morals.

Your problem is that think it's OK for you to determine where I should stand on this issue. I'd be wiling to bet that if I told a woman it's not moral to kill the unintended result of her choice to have sex, you'd tell me to butt out.

No, because you have a moral right to your opinion.

One of the reasons I am not pro-life is because of the moral dilemma between aborting a fetus and forcing women to carry pregnancies to term. How does one enforce anti-abortion laws? Imprisoning women who may abort? Strapping them to gurneys until they give birth? What about the men who are equally responsible for that pregnancy? Send them to labor depots?

Your position fits the stereotype of conservatives who care about children until they're born, but then not caring after they've been born.

Abortion should be the last option, instead it's the first option. Did you know that some in the administration believe there are too many people on the planet and they feel that removing a third of them is essential to prevent Global Warming?

Gotta link for that claim?

 

[mudwhistle]

I didn't mention abortion. I mentioned choice and choosing to having kids is as much of a choice a woman can make with her body as having an abortion.

What I think is that people like you can't determine my morals.

You may be right. A moral person, I think, couldn't determine your morals.

Your problem is that think it's OK for you to determine where I should stand on this issue. I'd be wiling to bet that if I told a woman it's not moral to kill the unintended result of her choice to have sex, you'd tell me to butt out.

No, because you have a moral right to your opinion.

One of the reasons I am not pro-life is because of the moral dilemma between aborting a fetus and forcing women to carry pregnancies to term. How does one enforce anti-abortion laws? Imprisoning women who may abort? Strapping them to gurneys until they give birth? What about the men who are equally responsible for that pregnancy? Send them to labor depots?

Your position fits the stereotype of conservatives who care about children until they're born, but then not caring after they've been born.

Abortion should be the last option, instead it's the first option. Did you know that some in the administration believe there are too many people on the planet and they feel that removing a third of them is essential to prevent Global Warming?

Gotta link for that claim?

Can you Google?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Deflection.

This isn't about abortion or forced charity. The state has a compelling interest in the welfare of children. I think society has a moral interest as well. Don't you?

I didn't mention abortion. I mentioned choice and choosing to having kids is as much of a choice a woman can make with her body as having an abortion.

What I think is that people like you can't determine my morals.

You may be right. A moral person, I think, couldn't determine your morals.

Your problem is that think it's OK for you to determine where I should stand on this issue. I'd be wiling to bet that if I told a woman it's not moral to kill the unintended result of her choice to have sex, you'd tell me to butt out.

No, because you have a moral right to your opinion.

One of the reasons I am not pro-life is because of the moral dilemma between aborting a fetus and forcing women to carry pregnancies to term. How does one enforce anti-abortion laws? Imprisoning women who may abort? Strapping them to gurneys until they give birth? What about the men who are equally responsible for that pregnancy? Send them to labor depots?

Your position fits the stereotype of conservatives who care about children until they're born, but then not caring after they've been born.

If those men equally responsible for creating that child would do his damn job, the rest of us woulnd't be forced to do it for him.

Your position fits the typical Liberal mindset that someone should have the freedom to make a choice yet not be held responsible for the results of it. I'm willing to give women whatever choice they want with their bodies as long as when those choices can't be funded by the one making it, I'm not forced to pay for something I was told to butt out of when the choice was being made. I ask for no more choice to say no than she asks for help to fund a choice she made.

So what you're saying, if I understand you correctly, is that either the state forces women to give birth to babies they may not be able to afford but then the state shouldn't do anything about the children's welfare afterwards or that women can have all the children they want even if the kids starve or are brought up in such a way as to continue the cycle of poverty as long as the state has nothing to do with it?

 

[mudwhistle]

I didn't mention abortion. I mentioned choice and choosing to having kids is as much of a choice a woman can make with her body as having an abortion.

What I think is that people like you can't determine my morals.

You may be right. A moral person, I think, couldn't determine your morals.

Your problem is that think it's OK for you to determine where I should stand on this issue. I'd be wiling to bet that if I told a woman it's not moral to kill the unintended result of her choice to have sex, you'd tell me to butt out.

No, because you have a moral right to your opinion.

One of the reasons I am not pro-life is because of the moral dilemma between aborting a fetus and forcing women to carry pregnancies to term. How does one enforce anti-abortion laws? Imprisoning women who may abort? Strapping them to gurneys until they give birth? What about the men who are equally responsible for that pregnancy? Send them to labor depots?

Your position fits the stereotype of conservatives who care about children until they're born, but then not caring after they've been born.

Abortion should be the last option, instead it's the first option. Did you know that some in the administration believe there are too many people on the planet and they feel that removing a third of them is essential to prevent Global Warming?

Gotta link for that claim?

Kathleen Sebelious had close ties to planned parenthood.Planned Parenthood and Black Genocide TooManyAborted.com

Bill Gates contributed heavily to Obama and thinks pretty much exactly the way I said others in the administration do.Bill Gates Talks About Vaccines to Reduce World Population Clinicalnews.org