Why do you assume an unwanted child has a mother who is nappy headed and a whore? Please do tell Mr. Stormfront.
what about educating the sod who has no concept of practicing safe sex how to prevent pregnancy in the first place?
Realize, statistically the vast majority of abortions aren't performed in that demographic. The large majority are to women in mid to late 20s. A large portion of these already have at least one child and the home is not fatherless. 17% of the remainder are perfectly normal teenagers with no drug addiction who simply made irresponsible choices. So your theory that the majority of these infants will grow up to be menaces to society is based on statistically faulty assumptions.
if larry ,curly and moe were still around, we could trot them out,dress em up nice and put them up as the the best 3 choices for presiident,they would be backed first by the dems,reps or a neutral vote squasher...none of these would make a good prez but it would allow the corporate entity to control DC and biz to go on as usual...any one thinking that the next election will bring about change,or that the dems or reps are the stronger party,and think that arguing for either side makes them look like an informed voter is brainwashed ...anyone other than larry ,curly or moe who might want to become prez,say trump,will be tarred and feathered and run out of town or hung from the nearest tree,by the good old boys, option777's party
All in favor of that...so we don't need to cut funding for planned parenthood, we need to increase funding of planned parenthood...
We were discussing those who can't afford abortions. Who can't afford it? Take that into your equation...
So you are saying that we should reward the fully irresponsible drug addicted welfare leaches, by paying for the services so they can continue on their rampage without consequence. But the semi-irresponsible married 30 year-old with two kids who (with her husband) doesn't feel like they have the financial resources to raise another child... She doesn't deserve any help covering the procedure because she can technically afford it?
That's not what I said. I think that those who make a mistake get probation. When they make the same mistake, they get their tubes tied. The 30 year old with two kids who doesn't want a child...and can't afford it...we pay for. If it happens again, she gets her tubes tied. If she can afford it, she pays for it just like any other medical procedure, a co-pay or pays for it fully. I am saying it is either: 1. A moral situation. 2. An economic situation of a medical procedure.
Sure... and I'm saying that for pro-lifers it is always moral, but you are trying to appeal to them on economic grounds. You suggest that it is less moral to allow babies to be born into less than desirable circumstances, and that we should take the initiative to terminate their existence. I'm saying that is no different than taking the initiative to terminate the life of the decrepit and senile elderly, simply on the grounds that most of them are an economic burden and live in discomfort and pain each day.
If the right to lifers are about morality, then they should make sure than each baby gets everything they need to live a happy life. They need to take full economic responsibility if necessary. To say it is a moral issue, then abandon the child once born because of economic reasons, is showing a lack of consistency morally speaking. If the right to lifers oppose euthanasia or PAD, then they should pony up the $$$ to make sure the end of life process is as humane and pain free as possible. What I find is the right to lifers are concerned with abortion and not allowing end of life by anything but unnecessary suffering are not demonstrating real compassion of concern for life itself.