Who is responsible for YOU?

[sealybobo]

Er...everyone CAN start their own business, if they are so inclined, Booboo. I have a welfare mom with 5 or 6 kids, one seriously disabled....she has a deli now.

If she can do it, believe me, anyone can.

Anyone or everyone? Can EVERYONE own their own business?

Before you answer, remember what happened when Bush said that he hoped EVERYONE could own their own house.

 

[AllieBaba]

Let me ask you this. Are white Conservative/GOP Americans responsible for ensuring single mothers receive an adequate amount of money to support the children they have if ABORTION is banned?

And we're back to the false premise that abortion reduces welfare.

It doesn't. Welfare recipients have increased by leaps and bounds since abortion became legal.

Please, I'm begging you, if you're going to make an ass of you do it with a coherent argument.

 

[manu1959]

Er...everyone CAN start their own business, if they are so inclined, Booboo. I have a welfare mom with 5 or 6 kids, one seriously disabled....she has a deli now.

If she can do it, believe me, anyone can.

Anyone or everyone? Can EVERYONE own their own business?

Before you answer, remember what happened when Bush said that he hoped EVERYONE could own their own house.

i agree....what an evil man....wanting everyone to own a home....

 

[sealybobo]

Let me ask you this. Are white Conservative/GOP Americans responsible for ensuring single mothers receive an adequate amount of money to support the children they have if ABORTION is banned?

And we're back to the false premise that abortion reduces welfare.

It doesn't. Welfare recipients have increased by leaps and bounds since abortion became legal.

Please, I'm begging you, if you're going to make an ass of you do it with a coherent argument.

Unemployment increased ever since Bush got into office.

So does that mean he is responsible?

Then shut the fuck up suggesting that abortion has increased welfare. Either that or prove the connection.

And remember, you consider the state helping pay for an abortion welfare? I don't. I consider that help a way of avoiding that person going on welfare. I'd rather give a woman $1000 to abort than $1000 a month for the next 18 years.

 

[AllieBaba]

There is no connection, idiot. That's my point. The fools who insist that eliminating abortion is going to cause this huge increase in child abuse and poverty are ignoring the fact that child abuse and poverty have increased along with abortion rates.

Fucking moron. Try to focus.

 

[sealybobo]

Er...everyone CAN start their own business, if they are so inclined, Booboo. I have a welfare mom with 5 or 6 kids, one seriously disabled....she has a deli now.

If she can do it, believe me, anyone can.

Anyone or everyone? Can EVERYONE own their own business?

Before you answer, remember what happened when Bush said that he hoped EVERYONE could own their own house.

i agree....what an evil man....wanting everyone to own a home....

If they knew 8 years ago they were going to rape the treasury and trash the global economy, yes, they are very evil.

And don't call me a conspiracy theorist. They had pre-planned Iraq well before 2000.

Funny though they didn't plan enough to figure out ahead of time, "who would replace Saddam, what would happen if they went into Bagdad, etc."

Despite the fact that Bush's father didn't go into Badgad because he knew.

And in the 90's, Chaney seemed to know, but in 2004, Chaney said they never imagined...

Are American's really this stupid? Do they not understand Disaster Capitalism?

 

[sealybobo]

There is no connection, idiot. That's my point. The fools who insist that eliminating abortion is going to cause this huge increase in child abuse and poverty are ignoring the fact that child abuse and poverty have increased along with abortion rates.

Fucking moron. Try to focus.

No, see you have it backwards. There is no connection between legal abortions and welfare....

But there would be a connection between making abortion illegal and welfare increases.

Its obvious. Why isn't it to you? Because you want to ban abortion.

Just like global warming is obvious to most of us but not you.

Just like we knew Bush lied about WMD's but it took you years to figure that one out.

Or that Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11.

All these things you believed because you are a sheep.

 

[AllieBaba]

It's not obvious. When abortion was illegal, welfare was almost non-existent.
Obviously you are completely out of touch with reality and you are just making it up as you go. Or you live on a different plane than the rest of us.

 

[sealybobo]

It's not obvious. When abortion was illegal, welfare was almost non-existent.
Obviously you are completely out of touch with reality and you are just making it up as you go. Or you live on a different plane than the rest of us.

Explain why the ability to get an abortion led to more welfare.

Or is there no connection.

 

[AllieBaba]

That's not what I said. I said the number of people on welfare has increased since the advent of legalized abortion.

You and your libtard idiot buddies are the ones who keep saying, "Well who's going to pay for all those hated, criminal, retarded, slobbering messes that will be born if we don't have abortion?"

Prove that would happen. The onus is on you, or quit saying it. It's a completely false argument, and you guys know it. THere is absolutely no evidence that the legalization of abortion reduces welfare recipients, child abuse, or any of the other things you claim. My point is that in fact, it looks like just the opposite.

So either prove your idiot theory that by eliminating abortion the need for welfare will increase, or admit it's a fallacy and drop it.

 

[editec]

The mistake is the arrogance or ignorance of people who think that they are owed something is they stagnate and do not advance...

And do you think that is what has happened to most people, DD?

I could have stayed a master of dial-up networking... and screamed "boo hoo" when I was not in demand anymore and making the big bucks.... no.. as things change, you change... if you do not, too bad too sad... that is on YOU

And do you think that is what is happening to the millions who are unemplyed now, DD?

Everyone CAN upgrade their skills, their training, their resume, their worth... to think otherwise is complete nonsense.. and unfortunately, too many liberals DO think this way... putting the boo hoo blame on everyone and anything else....

Okay, you're a 45 year MBA with a long resume of working in upper managment and doing a credible job.

Your company is going down for reasons entirely beyond your control, or for that matter, entirely beyond your company's control.

Now, what career should you embark on? What skill sets are you going to improve in order to land that job?

You seem to be of the opinion that the employed are bereft of skills.

While that certainly is the case for some of them, it clearly cannot be the case for the millions of people who are losing their jobs, right now.

Why this continues to confuse you, I cannot say.

Perhaps you are merely overstating your point?

Perhaps what you mean to say is that for some people in certain areas of the economy, most noteably in comuputer sciences, that one can and must continue to upgrade their skill sets?

Well that is true and will continue to be true until the number of foreign workers capable of doing those tasks floods this market and then, of course, you'e sjkill sets, while still being valuable, will be worth far less than you'd hoped when you were killing yourself to get them.

My point here is that the way you generalize the problem such that you describe the unemplyed as lazy losers is somewhat (read wildly) overstated.

 

[DiamondDave]

Those who remain unemployed are generally lazy...

I have been unemployed after layoffs... I have taken jobs bartending and whatever else until I could land my next job as a manager/engineer/etc

The employed are not lacking skills... but those who get lazy and stagnate, thinking things do and will not change, are having their choices set themselves up for failure

But again... this does not put the responsibility of your situation on to someone else.. it is ENTIRELY on YOU... you do whatever the fuck you have to do to provide for yourself and your family

My point is here that to many sit and boo hoo... to many think that because they WERE valuable to business, that they still are or will be valuable to business... to many do not see the writing on the wall and change as they need to change in business... and this is all because of their choices and actions

 

[AllieBaba]

Experts agree that during the past 25 years the rate of child abuse has increased dramatically. Between 1976 and 1987 alone, there was a 330% increase in reported cases of child abuse. While a portion of this increase is due to better reporting, experts agree that these figures reflect a real trend toward ever higher rates of abuse.

These figures clearly contradict the pro-abortionists' claim that abortion of "unwanted children" prevents child abuse. Ignoring the obvious illogic of this argument--which suggests that killing children is better than beating them--there is not a single scientific study that supports this theory. Instead, there is a clear statistical association between increased rates of abortion and increased rates of child abuse. Indeed, statistical and clinical research support not only an association, but a causal connection between abortion and subsequent child abuse.(1)
Abortion and Child Abuse - David C. Reardon.

"After Roe v. Wade, the overall U.S. homicide rate increased significantly by 39 percent and the rate for children one to four years of age increased by 73 percent." Gus J. Sltman, M.D., University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School at Camden, letter to the editor, JAMA 269:2033, 10/21/92.
"Since elective abortion became available in 1972, there has been a continuing increase in child battering as indicated by a report of 22,693 battered New York children in 1974, and 26,536 in 1975." Philip G. Ney, M.D., "Is elective abortion a cause of child abuse?" Sexual Medicine Today, June 1980

Over ninety percent of battered children are wanted pregnancies. (Lenoski, "Translating injury data into preventive health care services: Physical child abuse," Dept. of Pediatrics, University of Southern California, unpublished, 1976)
More Children Are Now Being Abused and Neglected Than in 1986, and Their Injuries Are More Serious. The rise in the number of seriously injured children probably reflects a real increase in child abuse and neglect, because it cannot plausibly be explained on the basis of heightened sensitivity. It is unreasonable to suppose that quadruple the number of seriously injured victims of abuse and neglect existed at the time of the NIS-2 and somehow escaped notice by community professionals. The fact that the seriously injured group has quadrupled during the 7 years since the NIS-2, and now comprises more than one-half million children, appears to herald a true rise in the scope and severity of child abuse and neglect in the United States.
Executive Summary of the Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect

According to NIS-3, child abuse and neglect increased by 67 percent between 1986 and 1993 (an average of almost 10 percent per year) and 149 percent between 1980 and 1993. Some of the biggest increases in recent times were reported in physical abuse (102 percent, or almost 15 percent per year) and sexual abuse (83 percent, or almost 12 percent per year).

Chart 1: Abuse and Neglect of American Children Has Increased 134% Since 1980

Obtaining trustworthy estimates of the degree of abuse and neglect in the United States--situations that perpetrators try to keep hidden for as long as possible - is difficult. Scholars utilize various methods to generate estimates of abuse, and their estimates are not always similar. Consequently, serious disagreements about the true level of abuse exist.4 Chart 2 is derived from data obtained from the 1996 NIS-3 survey report and illustrates the continuing rise in physical, sexual, and emotional abuse in the United States.
A-Team. Child sexual abuse. Child abuse statistics. Domestic violence, date rape, abusing women and abusing men. Abusing family and sex education; marriage education.
You'll have to follow the link to see the charts.

Child abuse has increased steadily since the advent of abortion. So the next time somebody feels compelled to open their big stupid mouths about how abortion will LIMIT child abuse, they need to take a gander at the stats.

Crime Statistics
The crime rate in the United States was lower in the 30s, 40s, and 50s, when abortion was illegal. Crime then started increasing prior to the legalization of abortion, and the minor decrease we have seen recently is a small drop when compared to the initial increase. If abortion prevents crime by reducing the number of potential criminals, as the study suggests, then why was the crime rate lower for many years prior to the legalization of abortion?

In addition, statistics show that much of the drop in crime isn't within the "post-Roe" age range. For instance, according to FBI statistics, the murder rate for 14 to 17-year-olds in 1997 was 94 percent higher than it was for 14 to 17-year-olds in 1984. Yet, during that same time period, the murder rate for 25 to 34-year-olds (those born prior to Roe) has dropped 27 percent. (source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/oage.txt)

The murder rate for 14 to 17-year-olds during 1993 (born post-Roe between 1975 and 1979) was 3.6 times that of the children who were 14 to 17 years old in 1984 (born pre-Roe 1966 to 1970). In contrast, over the same time span the murder rate for those 25 and over (all born prior to Roe) dropped 6 percent. (source: Bureau of Justice Statistics Homicide trends in the U.S.: Age.)

Probably the most significant drop in crime was seen between the years of 1993 and 1997, when Child Abuse and Suicide
Interestingly enough, legalized abortion was supposed to dramatically reduce child abuse. "Every child a wanted child!" abortion proponents cried. "Unwanted children are abused! Abortion will help end child abuse!" Aside from the fact that killing someone because they might be abused isn't very logical, child abuse has increased since the legalization of abortion. The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect indicates that the prevalence of child abuse is increasing, and the increases are "significant." From 1986 to 1993, the incidence of physical abuse rose 42% (97% under the revised Endangerment Standard), physical neglect rose 102% (163% E.S.), sexual abuse rose 83% (125% E.S.) and emotional neglect rose 333% (188% E.S.). This study did not conclude that better reporting was the reason for the increases:
"Although the rise in the population of endangered children may stem from improved recognition of more subtle cues from the child by community professionals, the rise in the number of serious injuries probably reflects a real increase in child abuse and neglect because it cannot be plausibly explained on the basis of heightened sensitivity." (source: Child abuse prevention, child abuse education, Code Amber Alert by child abuse.com)
Does Abortion Prevent Crime?

so go ahead, dildoes. Continue to make idiots of yourselves by saying over and over "abortion reduces child abuse" and "abortion reduces crime". There is not one thinking person in the world that believes it, or one statistic that proves it.

It's a stupid argument. Quit using it. Just admit you want to kill off the poor people and be honest for once.

 

[sealybobo]

Experts agree that during the past 25 years the rate of child abuse has increased dramatically. Between 1976 and 1987 alone, there was a 330% increase in reported cases of child abuse. While a portion of this increase is due to better reporting, experts agree that these figures reflect a real trend toward ever higher rates of abuse.

These figures clearly contradict the pro-abortionists' claim that abortion of "unwanted children" prevents child abuse. Ignoring the obvious illogic of this argument--which suggests that killing children is better than beating them--there is not a single scientific study that supports this theory. Instead, there is a clear statistical association between increased rates of abortion and increased rates of child abuse. Indeed, statistical and clinical research support not only an association, but a causal connection between abortion and subsequent child abuse.(1)
Abortion and Child Abuse - David C. Reardon.

"After Roe v. Wade, the overall U.S. homicide rate increased significantly by 39 percent and the rate for children one to four years of age increased by 73 percent." Gus J. Sltman, M.D., University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School at Camden, letter to the editor, JAMA 269:2033, 10/21/92.
"Since elective abortion became available in 1972, there has been a continuing increase in child battering as indicated by a report of 22,693 battered New York children in 1974, and 26,536 in 1975." Philip G. Ney, M.D., "Is elective abortion a cause of child abuse?" Sexual Medicine Today, June 1980

Over ninety percent of battered children are wanted pregnancies. (Lenoski, "Translating injury data into preventive health care services: Physical child abuse," Dept. of Pediatrics, University of Southern California, unpublished, 1976)
More Children Are Now Being Abused and Neglected Than in 1986, and Their Injuries Are More Serious. The rise in the number of seriously injured children probably reflects a real increase in child abuse and neglect, because it cannot plausibly be explained on the basis of heightened sensitivity. It is unreasonable to suppose that quadruple the number of seriously injured victims of abuse and neglect existed at the time of the NIS-2 and somehow escaped notice by community professionals. The fact that the seriously injured group has quadrupled during the 7 years since the NIS-2, and now comprises more than one-half million children, appears to herald a true rise in the scope and severity of child abuse and neglect in the United States.
Executive Summary of the Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect

According to NIS-3, child abuse and neglect increased by 67 percent between 1986 and 1993 (an average of almost 10 percent per year) and 149 percent between 1980 and 1993. Some of the biggest increases in recent times were reported in physical abuse (102 percent, or almost 15 percent per year) and sexual abuse (83 percent, or almost 12 percent per year).

Chart 1: Abuse and Neglect of American Children Has Increased 134% Since 1980

Obtaining trustworthy estimates of the degree of abuse and neglect in the United States--situations that perpetrators try to keep hidden for as long as possible - is difficult. Scholars utilize various methods to generate estimates of abuse, and their estimates are not always similar. Consequently, serious disagreements about the true level of abuse exist.4 Chart 2 is derived from data obtained from the 1996 NIS-3 survey report and illustrates the continuing rise in physical, sexual, and emotional abuse in the United States.
A-Team. Child sexual abuse. Child abuse statistics. Domestic violence, date rape, abusing women and abusing men. Abusing family and sex education; marriage education.
You'll have to follow the link to see the charts.

Child abuse has increased steadily since the advent of abortion. So the next time somebody feels compelled to open their big stupid mouths about how abortion will LIMIT child abuse, they need to take a gander at the stats.

Crime Statistics
The crime rate in the United States was lower in the 30s, 40s, and 50s, when abortion was illegal. Crime then started increasing prior to the legalization of abortion, and the minor decrease we have seen recently is a small drop when compared to the initial increase. If abortion prevents crime by reducing the number of potential criminals, as the study suggests, then why was the crime rate lower for many years prior to the legalization of abortion?

In addition, statistics show that much of the drop in crime isn't within the "post-Roe" age range. For instance, according to FBI statistics, the murder rate for 14 to 17-year-olds in 1997 was 94 percent higher than it was for 14 to 17-year-olds in 1984. Yet, during that same time period, the murder rate for 25 to 34-year-olds (those born prior to Roe) has dropped 27 percent. (source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/oage.txt)

The murder rate for 14 to 17-year-olds during 1993 (born post-Roe between 1975 and 1979) was 3.6 times that of the children who were 14 to 17 years old in 1984 (born pre-Roe 1966 to 1970). In contrast, over the same time span the murder rate for those 25 and over (all born prior to Roe) dropped 6 percent. (source: Bureau of Justice Statistics Homicide trends in the U.S.: Age.)

Probably the most significant drop in crime was seen between the years of 1993 and 1997, when Child Abuse and Suicide
Interestingly enough, legalized abortion was supposed to dramatically reduce child abuse. "Every child a wanted child!" abortion proponents cried. "Unwanted children are abused! Abortion will help end child abuse!" Aside from the fact that killing someone because they might be abused isn't very logical, child abuse has increased since the legalization of abortion. The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect indicates that the prevalence of child abuse is increasing, and the increases are "significant." From 1986 to 1993, the incidence of physical abuse rose 42% (97% under the revised Endangerment Standard), physical neglect rose 102% (163% E.S.), sexual abuse rose 83% (125% E.S.) and emotional neglect rose 333% (188% E.S.). This study did not conclude that better reporting was the reason for the increases:
"Although the rise in the population of endangered children may stem from improved recognition of more subtle cues from the child by community professionals, the rise in the number of serious injuries probably reflects a real increase in child abuse and neglect because it cannot be plausibly explained on the basis of heightened sensitivity." (source: Child abuse prevention, child abuse education, Code Amber Alert by child abuse.com)
Does Abortion Prevent Crime?

so go ahead, dildoes. Continue to make idiots of yourselves by saying over and over "abortion reduces child abuse" and "abortion reduces crime". There is not one thinking person in the world that believes it, or one statistic that proves it.

It's a stupid argument. Quit using it. Just admit you want to kill off the poor people and be honest for once.

If child abuse is bad now, just think what it would be if you forced women to have kids they don't want.

It would double.

 

[sealybobo]

Those who remain unemployed are generally lazy...

I have been unemployed after layoffs... I have taken jobs bartending and whatever else until I could land my next job as a manager/engineer/etc

The employed are not lacking skills... but those who get lazy and stagnate, thinking things do and will not change, are having their choices set themselves up for failure

But again... this does not put the responsibility of your situation on to someone else.. it is ENTIRELY on YOU... you do whatever the fuck you have to do to provide for yourself and your family

My point is here that to many sit and boo hoo... to many think that because they WERE valuable to business, that they still are or will be valuable to business... to many do not see the writing on the wall and change as they need to change in business... and this is all because of their choices and actions

Well I just hope we can go back to having a government that helps its citizens, rather than hurt us.

Because if you succeeded in the last 8 years, it was despite the government, not because of it.

In the past, the government used to be there to help.

The GOP didn't just say that government is the problem, they proved it.

 

[AllieBaba]

Those who remain unemployed are generally lazy...

I have been unemployed after layoffs... I have taken jobs bartending and whatever else until I could land my next job as a manager/engineer/etc

The employed are not lacking skills... but those who get lazy and stagnate, thinking things do and will not change, are having their choices set themselves up for failure

But again... this does not put the responsibility of your situation on to someone else.. it is ENTIRELY on YOU... you do whatever the fuck you have to do to provide for yourself and your family

My point is here that to many sit and boo hoo... to many think that because they WERE valuable to business, that they still are or will be valuable to business... to many do not see the writing on the wall and change as they need to change in business... and this is all because of their choices and actions

I was a legal assistant for 5 years (a very cush job) then left it due to my son's illness, and when he had stabilized, I worked for 2 years as a bartender/cook when I sort of fell into it through my sister in law who worked at the same place and they needed help. It was one of the best jobs I ever had, one of the best bosses, it kept me off welfare and the hours were regular. I always had the same days off, my schedule never varied.

I can't tell you how many people (and usually men) who say "I won't work for that much money, I used to make blah blah blah blah...." What a bunch of crap. Yet they have no problem with their wives and mothers of their children taking shit jobs to feed their lazy asses and support their kids.

Anyone can get a job. ANYONE. If they want to work.

But you have to want it.

 

[Bern80]

FIRST and foremost it should be noted that deliberately avoided much of my post for obvious reasons, so let's not get into some tiff over who's the bigger man about being called out on their shit. You spoke of some 'Scions' on this board whos personal history you seem to know an awful lot about. Again, WHO ARE THEY? I ask because as far as oposition to your arguments go on this subject, it comes down to less than a handful of people and I'm usually one of them.

Are you a scion?

Not according to your own testimony about how you arrived at your current state.

Then who are you referring to?

You are, much as I once was, somebody who started out poor, got an education in your chosen field and are making it in America.

Actually as far as income goes I would still be considered poor, not that I really feel that way. It's actually impreessive the extras you can afford at the current povertly level.

So if that is the case why do you feel offended when I bitch about the scions who do not have you vita or you claim to a share of the American pie?

I CLEARLY choose the word SCION on purpose...and that purpose was what, do you suppose?

To eliminate from my rant people just like YOU.

Because I'm not sure such a group exists. If you deliberately chose that word I would also have to assume that you deliberately chose to say they exist on 'this board'.

Now, are you somebody who started out on third base and got hit home, or are you somebody who started out in the bush leagues and made the majors?

I don't know WHY you are offended.

The best analogy I can make is that I started out in the Bush leagues the son of the GM. My dad was partner in an animal practice, but taught me the things that I preach over and over here. That while it is great if people help you (and they have) you have no right to expect it as an able bodied person. Further whether you feel you have the right to expect it or not it is ultimately not beneficial to yourself to do so. You won't grow as a person and you'll probably be waiting a while.

Perhaps you tell me what you find offensive when I am clearly describing a whole 'nother species of winner of the current economy than you.

It's hard to answer because again i believe the premise is wrong. Because I don't believe it is the role of the economy, my employer, or the government to make me a 'winner', financially speaking. I am not offended more just fearful of a society run with policies your propose. Policies that are suppossed to make things right for the little guy as you say. That's such an abstract concept that I can barely get my head around it. But it does rest on a couple premises; It rests on the notion that most of these people are victims. I think that is extremely dangerous in terms of human nature. It is so easy to claim victim status. It is not in human nature to examine our own faults or our own role in why things go poorly sometimes. So when you start preaching we gotta make it right for the little guy, or we gotta stick it to the rich, or the blue collar worker is getting screwed, human nature will dictate, justified or not, that most will be all too willing to join that battle cry.

As I said before you can not change what you don't acknowledge. In the simplest terms you want things to be better for people that are struggling financially and the issue the bulk, if not all, of your focus in terms of who should fix it, who's to blame is directed at someone other than the very individuals you claim to want to help. That is a misprioritization. At the very least you need to determine if all these people you champion for bare any responsibility for the situation they are in. What are the things they can do on their own to improve their lot. THEN once you've done that and if things aren't any better that is when I would start examining these nefarious forces keeping people down. When you can confidently say your potential is maxed out or there's this barrier I just can't get around and it's keeping you from even surviving, then I would start championing the the working class because all the policy changes in the world won't accomplish a thing people don't choose to put forth some effort of their own.

 

[Tigerlils13]

I stand corrected about your giving. Aparently, you just want other people to give their money to the needy. I find it quite offensive that you mistake the generosity of our country with the socialism of Canada, and Britain. Make no mistake, that is a big leap that you made. It really does lead me to believe that you are a socialist. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Conservatives, and liberals both pay enough taxes to our government. Our government was set up to protect us from invasion, to build the infrastructure of this Great Nation, and to protect the constitution. Life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. This is what the foundation of our country stood for. Not all of this mandated redistribution of wealth, that was never part of the constitution.

1) I can't give to charity if I don't have a job because I don't have a car because my mother won't let me take my driving test, right? As such, until I do have a job, I'll continue to contribute in the ways that I can.However, I'll tell you right now that I am extremely discouraged to discover that you, without having ever met me, believe that I am such a hypocritical person as to not practice what I preach and firmly believe in.
2)I find it offensive that your so arrogant as to not think about countries such as Britain and Canada. And, uh, btw... Canada and Britain arn't socialist. They just have extremely liberal ideas. However, if you want to discuss France then... yeah. The French are socialist... And uh, no... I'm not a socialist, because then I'd be an idiot for not paying attention to my history teachers.
3) Note that you included "life" in your posting there. We have the right to life as American citizens. Now go and read the Internation Declaration of Human Rights, which has been signed by the United States of America, meaning that our great and moral country has signed a document agreeing to uphold the principles set forth by it. Take a really close look at Article 25 for me. Unless you're going and try to redefine what it means to have a basic human right to something, then you're going to be forced to come back and tell me that the United States, as of right now, is not following the Declaration. Of course, I'm always willing to listen to a good argument.

I see what they're teaching in school these days. Tiger, I'm not trying to hammer on you..OK? This is from Amnesty International... written by United Nations. Please look at the governments that are in the United nations. See if they pass your litmus test for what your asking us to do. There is so much socialism in that declaration. I can't remember how many times I saw the word "social." Isn't this a clue for you? Article 25, I read it, It has the word social written in it twice. It was written by Eleanor Roosevelt, a socialist. It also was a non-binding declaration. I'm not going to mix it up with you on this. I do commend on your knowledge of the subject. But, i don't agree with what your saying. Just like you don't agree with mine.

Oh, don't worry. I do understand where you're coming from, lol. I'm pretty sure that no country actually upholds the declaration to the letter. And yes, perhaps it was non-binding. But we did sign it. Doesn't that say something? Or is our word not good enough?
See, that's where I start to get confused. If the United States signs something, ven a non-binding declaration... well, the declaration is a worthy document, is it not? It's not as though it's preaching values that arn't commended or highly regarded.Perhaps it is socialist in nature, but let's keep in mind that socialism, in it's purest form, is a beautiful and wonderful thing.
It is only human nature that prevents socialism in its entirety from working. But we live in the United States of America, where we have the power of free speach and where we can rope in our government should we wish to. It's not as though preaching and spreading the values of socialism (note I said values, not format of government!) is a bad thing.
See, here's why I really think people should have to give their taxes to the government in order for the poor to receive proper care: Not enough people give charity. That's the sad thing about it. We can (and have, haha) gone back and forth on this issue, but if more people arn't somehow pushed into giving a portion of their income to "charity" (in this case the Government) then there will continue to be people who can't afford their drugs, people who can't get a descent meal, children who can't go to college... This is all preventable.
It's not as though I'm trying to play Robin Hood. It's not as though I'm really preaching redistribution of wealth. What I am doing, however, is trying to motivate people to see the plight of the poor, to understand that just because the poor are stereotyped as lazy, stupid people it doesn't mean that they are and that it doesn't mean that they don't have children to provide for.
Here I've come to the heart of why I care so much about this issue: the children. Let me pretend for a moment that all poor parents are lazy and whatnot. using that philosophy, can it really be the child's fault that he or she was born to lazy parents?
There are not enough programs in place to protect those children. Parents need healthcare so that they can raise their children. Parents need things like food stamps and TANF so that they can put food on the table and keep a roof over their childrens heads.
Can we really punish a child because of their parents?
So, I expect that your next argument is that whatever assistance these parents receive will be wasted because the parents waste it. Thats why we must set up roadblocks that prevent such things from happening. That's one of the things that's so great about being an American. We can monitor our government just as much as they try to monitor us=P
If all of us can work together to come up with a solution that provides care for all of these children then by all means we must.

 

[AllieBaba]

Experts agree that during the past 25 years the rate of child abuse has increased dramatically. Between 1976 and 1987 alone, there was a 330% increase in reported cases of child abuse. While a portion of this increase is due to better reporting, experts agree that these figures reflect a real trend toward ever higher rates of abuse.

These figures clearly contradict the pro-abortionists' claim that abortion of "unwanted children" prevents child abuse. Ignoring the obvious illogic of this argument--which suggests that killing children is better than beating them--there is not a single scientific study that supports this theory. Instead, there is a clear statistical association between increased rates of abortion and increased rates of child abuse. Indeed, statistical and clinical research support not only an association, but a causal connection between abortion and subsequent child abuse.(1)
Abortion and Child Abuse - David C. Reardon.

"After Roe v. Wade, the overall U.S. homicide rate increased significantly by 39 percent and the rate for children one to four years of age increased by 73 percent." Gus J. Sltman, M.D., University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School at Camden, letter to the editor, JAMA 269:2033, 10/21/92.
"Since elective abortion became available in 1972, there has been a continuing increase in child battering as indicated by a report of 22,693 battered New York children in 1974, and 26,536 in 1975." Philip G. Ney, M.D., "Is elective abortion a cause of child abuse?" Sexual Medicine Today, June 1980

Over ninety percent of battered children are wanted pregnancies. (Lenoski, "Translating injury data into preventive health care services: Physical child abuse," Dept. of Pediatrics, University of Southern California, unpublished, 1976)
More Children Are Now Being Abused and Neglected Than in 1986, and Their Injuries Are More Serious. The rise in the number of seriously injured children probably reflects a real increase in child abuse and neglect, because it cannot plausibly be explained on the basis of heightened sensitivity. It is unreasonable to suppose that quadruple the number of seriously injured victims of abuse and neglect existed at the time of the NIS-2 and somehow escaped notice by community professionals. The fact that the seriously injured group has quadrupled during the 7 years since the NIS-2, and now comprises more than one-half million children, appears to herald a true rise in the scope and severity of child abuse and neglect in the United States.
Executive Summary of the Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect

According to NIS-3, child abuse and neglect increased by 67 percent between 1986 and 1993 (an average of almost 10 percent per year) and 149 percent between 1980 and 1993. Some of the biggest increases in recent times were reported in physical abuse (102 percent, or almost 15 percent per year) and sexual abuse (83 percent, or almost 12 percent per year).

Chart 1: Abuse and Neglect of American Children Has Increased 134% Since 1980

Obtaining trustworthy estimates of the degree of abuse and neglect in the United States--situations that perpetrators try to keep hidden for as long as possible - is difficult. Scholars utilize various methods to generate estimates of abuse, and their estimates are not always similar. Consequently, serious disagreements about the true level of abuse exist.4 Chart 2 is derived from data obtained from the 1996 NIS-3 survey report and illustrates the continuing rise in physical, sexual, and emotional abuse in the United States.
A-Team. Child sexual abuse. Child abuse statistics. Domestic violence, date rape, abusing women and abusing men. Abusing family and sex education; marriage education.
You'll have to follow the link to see the charts.

Child abuse has increased steadily since the advent of abortion. So the next time somebody feels compelled to open their big stupid mouths about how abortion will LIMIT child abuse, they need to take a gander at the stats.

Crime Statistics
The crime rate in the United States was lower in the 30s, 40s, and 50s, when abortion was illegal. Crime then started increasing prior to the legalization of abortion, and the minor decrease we have seen recently is a small drop when compared to the initial increase. If abortion prevents crime by reducing the number of potential criminals, as the study suggests, then why was the crime rate lower for many years prior to the legalization of abortion?

In addition, statistics show that much of the drop in crime isn't within the "post-Roe" age range. For instance, according to FBI statistics, the murder rate for 14 to 17-year-olds in 1997 was 94 percent higher than it was for 14 to 17-year-olds in 1984. Yet, during that same time period, the murder rate for 25 to 34-year-olds (those born prior to Roe) has dropped 27 percent. (source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/oage.txt)

The murder rate for 14 to 17-year-olds during 1993 (born post-Roe between 1975 and 1979) was 3.6 times that of the children who were 14 to 17 years old in 1984 (born pre-Roe 1966 to 1970). In contrast, over the same time span the murder rate for those 25 and over (all born prior to Roe) dropped 6 percent. (source: Bureau of Justice Statistics Homicide trends in the U.S.: Age.)

Probably the most significant drop in crime was seen between the years of 1993 and 1997, when Child Abuse and Suicide
Interestingly enough, legalized abortion was supposed to dramatically reduce child abuse. "Every child a wanted child!" abortion proponents cried. "Unwanted children are abused! Abortion will help end child abuse!" Aside from the fact that killing someone because they might be abused isn't very logical, child abuse has increased since the legalization of abortion. The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect indicates that the prevalence of child abuse is increasing, and the increases are "significant." From 1986 to 1993, the incidence of physical abuse rose 42% (97% under the revised Endangerment Standard), physical neglect rose 102% (163% E.S.), sexual abuse rose 83% (125% E.S.) and emotional neglect rose 333% (188% E.S.). This study did not conclude that better reporting was the reason for the increases:
"Although the rise in the population of endangered children may stem from improved recognition of more subtle cues from the child by community professionals, the rise in the number of serious injuries probably reflects a real increase in child abuse and neglect because it cannot be plausibly explained on the basis of heightened sensitivity." (source: Child abuse prevention, child abuse education, Code Amber Alert by child abuse.com)
Does Abortion Prevent Crime?

so go ahead, dildoes. Continue to make idiots of yourselves by saying over and over "abortion reduces child abuse" and "abortion reduces crime". There is not one thinking person in the world that believes it, or one statistic that proves it.

It's a stupid argument. Quit using it. Just admit you want to kill off the poor people and be honest for once.

If child abuse is bad now, just think what it would be if you forced women to have kids they don't want.

It would double.

PROVE IT YOU FUCKING IDIOT. I just proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that child abuse, death, neglect and sex abuse has increased with the advent of legalized abortion, and that none of the arguments used by the Supreme Court to force the legalization down the throats of an UNWILLING POPULACE have come to fruition. There is absolutely no evidence that what you say is true. And yet you have the stupid audacity to say, "Well it would be WORSE" if there was no abortion."

Bullshit. Crime, child abuse and child murder were LESS COMMON when abortion was illegal. Read the literature. Look up the stats. Nobody denies it. It puzzles the shit out of the eugenecists (Planned Parenthood, the Gutmacher Institute, the CDC), who think that killing babies is the way to rid the world of disease, crime, unsavory populations and all sorts of things they don't like.

You keep repeating the mantra. There is no proof to support it. So shut the hell up. This is what we call "magical" thinking. You think something, therefore you assume it is. In other circles, it's also called "criminal" thinking....you think your way around things you know to be true and moral.

If you can prove it, prove it. Otherwise quit saying it, because in saying it, when you know it's not true, you're just proving yourself a liar and propagandist.

I know you're a propagandist, but I've always assumed the best of you, that you are young and probably a little stupid. But if you continue to tell lies that you KNOW are lies, then I've got no use for you.

 

[AllieBaba]

There is no connection, idiot. That's my point. The fools who insist that eliminating abortion is going to cause this huge increase in child abuse and poverty are ignoring the fact that child abuse and poverty have increased along with abortion rates.

Fucking moron. Try to focus.

No, see you have it backwards. There is no connection between legal abortions and welfare....

But there would be a connection between making abortion illegal and welfare increases.

Its obvious. Why isn't it to you? Because you want to ban abortion.

Just like global warming is obvious to most of us but not you.

Just like we knew Bush lied about WMD's but it took you years to figure that one out.

Or that Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11.

All these things you believed because you are a sheep.

The sheep is you, friend. You are making connections that don't exist. Crime and welfare were much, much lower when abortion was illegal. As soon as it became legal, welfare rolls increased and so did crime.

You do the fucking math. And for you to call anyone a sheep is a laugh. Have you ever posted any real information other than the outright lies you sweep up from the floors of socialist propaganda sites?