Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics and News' started by Bitek, Mar 1, 2012.
It's called welfare.
It just did.
This means you lose an internet.
Also, responding twice in a row instead of editing your post... Classy.
Just like My hero Rush, who often tells me how to think about social issues.
If you're against this then I really feel sorry for you. You're obviously of much lesser intelligence than the average human being.
That's a great non-solution. I was referring to a sensible approach instead of letting females free-load off the money of others.
I'm super slow and I'm against it.
So that's points for your side.
No idea what "it" is
You referenced nothing other than misogyny & vaguely defined Libertopian fantasy. You have no reasonable alternative, which is why you propose none. While less frequent, women have been known to run off, abandon their children to the care of their father, who are every bit as eligible for welfare as women in the same situation.
I'm not getting paid to provide ideas for lazy politicians, but here's just a few alternatives they could consider:
1. The cost of the pregnancy can be divided between the male and the female responsible for it. In fact, she can already sue the male for child support, but somehow that's not good enough
2. If she's a minor, the cost of abortion can be covered by her parents.
3. If she's temporarily low on money, she could be provided a loan to cover the cost of abortion.
4. If she's a complete deadbeat with no job and no idea who the daddy is, she can have the Unplanned Parenthood abortion and do community service to pay back her debt to society.
So we can just go for forced abortions, right? Brilliant, in a jack booted authoritarian sort of way.
My brother own three pharmacies and makes gross $6 on birth control.. barley worth doing with labels and staff. He makes $220 on ea Rush's Oxy prescription. I think we shouldnt pay for oxy. Sooo overpriced. But none is talking about that.
Good idea, it should be an addendum to the forced healthcare payments. It is for the good of society, right? That means the fed gov should have the power to force people do engage in it.
In case you missed the PP numbers I linked to earlier, the majority of those unwanted pregnancies will be aborted anyways, by choice of the mother. None of my proposed solutions mandate abortions, but provide a way in which the mother can have one without being a burden on society.
Not having a child is a burden to society. Children are full of creative potential and not having them destroys such potential.
That is factually untrue, no many how many times you repeat it. Your emotional beliefs are trumped by actual data.
I'm still waiting for you to back up your so-called facts with evidence.
Excuse me sonny, but that's not how it works. You don't get to pull random claims out of your butt, based on what you feel should be true, and then demand we refute them. You made the claim. You back it up ... or man up and admit you were wrong.
You started with one actual piece of data: Planned Parenthood performed 330K abortions. You then assumed that must also be somewhere near the number of planned pregnancies, apparently based on your feelings about what should be true. You then declared, as fact, that "That means the overwhelming majority of pregnancies the provider covers are planned pregnancies ..." Here's the problem: you were wrong. You grossly under-guessed the number of unplanned pregnancies each year. That destroyed your whole argument, your feelings notwithstanding.
An intelligent, reasoning person would see this data, recognize it didn't match his emotional beliefs, and adjust them accordingly. Not you. You just dug in and kept pushing the same nonsense, twisting and spinning frantically to try to hide your errors. Sorry, didn't work. You're still wrong.
So, all that said, I know you're not about to look into the actual data around pregnancies and abortion. You want to believe what you feel must be, and the last thing you want is data that challenges you. Tough. Here's that data you wish weren't true:
From the CDC at: http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/index.htm
Pulled from this report, linked at the CDC site: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3809006.pdf
This is where you should admit you erred and walk away.
You're starting off with reading comprehension fail, son. My link to PP numbers were to show an estimated percentage of unwanted pregnancies ending in abortion, as opposed to those ending in birth and adoption. Granted, it's only dealing within the scope of PP, but it's a large sample of data, and it deals specifically with "free" tax payer sponsored services, such as those the government loves to promise in exchange for votes.
Secondly, let's be clear about the distinction between unwanted pregnancies and unplanned pregnancies. Unplanned pregnancies are not limited to broke single females, but can happen to any fertile female engaging in sex, including those with a stable job and a stable relationship, and including those who are already using contraception. If under such circumstances the female willingly chooses to carry the pregnancy to full term and have the kid as usual, then she is responsible for providing for that kid, and calling it "unwanted" is a long stretch at best.
And thirdly, despite all the liberal socialist and feminist claims that tax payer funded contraception and abortions are saving us money, let's examine what actually happened when the 1970's led to a rise of female empowerment and strong, independent women -
What happened is there was a huge increase in the number of single moms, along with a drop in marriage. The pursuit of a liberal socialist utopia is merely enabling women to pop out kids with little regard for the cost and consequences of their choices.
That's exactly what I expected. You are incapable of admitting error, so you huff and puff wave your hands, hoping nobody notices you're trying to shift the goalposts ... again.
You're a waste of electrons. Buh bye.
You should just give up instead of painting yourself into a corner.
I am a waste of corner electrons.
A pro life article from the left, just my 2 cents
The solution is simple. Just like they have in other countries, they should provide state sponsored day care for working mothers. You reduce the financial burden and increase the available work hours for a new mother, you get a better chance they will NOT abort (not great, mind you. Pregnancy is a tough thing for all but that mom of 19 and those like her).
You need to encourage this to be used properly, though, as the abusers of the system might just use it to keep Jr out of their hair while they "work" at 'Empire city' slots for a few hours a day.
But this is drifting off topic again. Rush just wants to pay full price for the birth control pills he takes. I say let him.
Just FYI, Mark Steyn filled in for Rush at least one day last week. He said Rush had suspended himself for his outrageous decision to continue associating with himself.
Shouldn't you be busy blocking people like a sensitive two-year old who gets offended easily?