I really would hate to live in your world where you apparently you don’t think the government should help anyone.
The states should decide....
- Thread starter BelemNole
- Start date
I really would hate to live in your world where you apparently you don’t think the government should help anyone.
You act like I did something special and unprecedented. I realize it will never exist but that doesn’t mean we should terminate life. It’s simple.
When the federal government ends up being fiscally responsible for unwanted children, there's a strong case to be made that such a law is completely reasonable.
I'd pass that, along with a law that any child birthed in a state restricting abortions in the first trimester MUST provide welfare services to that child until they are 18 years old, and the federal funds provided to such a state will be removed and paid out to any other state that child moves to until they are 18 years old.
In other words, if an abortion-restrictive state forces the kids to be born, and those parents move to another state, the "state of origin" will end up paying the new state $$ to fund that kid's welfare for the remainder of their childhood. In fact, you could make that policy for every state, regardless of abortion policies: the "state of birth record" is required to provide funding for any welfare needed until the child turns 18. States can adopt policies consistent with their budgets.
On the contrary. You’re one of many, many people that can’t see past their own nose. Very, very ordinary unfortunately.
So again, what do you think of the thousands of newborns that will be born now, into extreme poverty, violent homes, into homes that don’t want them, etc.
What makes you think this 15 week ban would guarantee abortion until 15 weeks? I could be wrong but my understanding is this would set a national ban at 15 weeks but states could still have stricter laws.
LOLWUT?
You just stated that we don't subsidize. We DO.
What we DO NOT do is provide social safety nets for low-income people.
Now, someone who works a low-income job and already has a kid or two, gets pregnant and has pregnancy complications cannot afford to birth the kid, cannot work, and cannot get any medical leave from work or state support. That's what will now happen to lower income folks, even if they don't "want" to get an abortion, they won't have the option in many cases. And who will pay for this? That's right, everyone else.
15 weeks is far too short.
Needs to be at least 20, as 24 is typically 'viable'.
Fetal heartbeat laws need to go away, too (like Catholic Ireland), because there is no actual "heart", there's just cells trained to pulse at that point.
Well yeah, but there’s a whole lot that phases out. Dammit. Don’t go all Joes Place, Joe. I’m just poking a little fun.
Maybe we should do something nation wide like the “click it or ticket” but instead it says “If you can’t afford to have children, practice safe sex.”
Maybe I should hone in my “subsidize” comment and say we don’t subsidize to the level that you think it should.
Maybe we have a discussion as a nation that says abortion can no longer be used as contraception if you live in these states. If you choose to have sex and you get pregnant, it is on you and the father.
I don’t believe murder is justified by socioeconomics.
There’s more to taxes than just claiming dependents Joey. You evidently don’t have children and have never made significant amounts of annual income in such a way that certain child care related expenditures are phased out from your tax options. Or you’re just being the prickly ol’ you we all know and love! Either way, I won’t be going over the multiple ways high earners lose out. In the end, it doesn’t matter, they can afford it and can afford to do what they want in terms of abortions because they’ll be able to travel. It’s the poors that will be impacted even though they can take every tax advantage (dependent claims + various credits) and social programs. So, as I’m now bored with your version of pedantry, back to the point of the thread…
GOP won't go along with this.
They've pushed to ban or restrict access to birth control - even allowing businesses to "opt out" on insurance coverage for it. They've decided 'for everyone' that the purpose of sex is for procreation, not recreation.
They were against making Christians provide contraception through offered insurance, I could be wrong. You can get a pack of condoms for a few bucks at any convenience store. I haven’t heard anyone in the conservative circles say they are against contraception. The purpose of sex is procreation. It always has been. Doesn’t mean it can’t be for recreation but there are inherent risks that come along with that way of thinking. Same with the 2nd amendment. You can keep arms but if you don’t secure your arms and they are used illegally then you will be held accountable.
So aborting doesn't interfere with that unborns life? Walk me through that rationale please.
Consider this.
Condition 1:
1,000 total pregnancies
10% aborted, 100 total
100 delivered and unwanted
Condition 2:
2,000 total pregnancies
15% aborted, 300 total
200 delivered and unwanted
Both of the outcomes I stated in my OP (more unwanted children born and higher rate of abortion) occurring simultaneously. That’s all I was saying.
See; this is where you and they are imposing your "beliefs" on others.
Some people engage in sex for fun and intimacy. Not just to make babies.
The only reason Ginsburg didn't like Roe was because it didn't secure a woman's choice, left it open for attacking and she was right.
The issue today is all about radical evangelicals on a secular supreme court. In handing it down to the states they're handing down the right to use religion based decisions throughout America.
Republicans are ****ing scum.
Not for these GOP politicians.
And how about "abortion smoothie" Trumper Jason Miller?
Remind us how many of Biden's wives (or mistresses) were pushed to have abortions?
Well.....Dicks got them into this position in the first place. Makes sense Dick's would throw in a few $$ to bail 'em out...
Your gentials don’t know the difference. Science would say sex is for procreation
No they aren’t. They are returning the power to the states. Nothing more, nothing less.
It’s not my beliefs. Engaging in sex can and will result in pregnancy. Wether that is your intention or not means absolutely nothing.
Murder is wrong, we as a society have decided this, and people should plan on the possibility of life if they plan on engaging in sex.
Lol so you think the failings of politicians are to be how I should shape my opinions?
That doesn't make any sense. You can't be upset about this decision under the guise of limited access while simultaneously saying the rate will increase. Nevermind the fact birth rates have steadily been declining. The only way your situation comes to fruition is if access doesn't change and birth rates reverse course.
Neither are things we are granted you take for granted. Foolish argument.
Murder is wrong, lol. Tell that to the maskless who disrespected social distancing precautions and those who vote for Republicans who legislate pollution which is killing life's source.
Murder, gtfo.
Uh, the right to bear arms is not in the Constitution. Before you come back, show me.
I think I saw a poll that showed women support a ban on 2nd and 3rd trimester abortion with them exception of mothers health
"mother's health" is legally undefined, and means different things to different people.
- For one, it may mean "I'll go to the ER before I'll abort"
- For another, it may mean "I already have 2 kids, and a difficult pregnancy preventing me from working will bankrupt my family - and I do not want to risk leaving my existing kids orphans if things 'go south' quickly on me"
Why would you want "legislators" imposing those decisions/restricting those options for some people?
