About 1,400,000 abortions in the US every year. Cost to raise a child

[Thtwudbeme]

to the age of 18?

No college? Figure over 100,000 dollars.

And these same stupid fuckers don't want to pay more taxes.

My head is exploding.

You dumb motherfuckers from those other websites that make fun of DU: Please, please log on and explain to me how you all propose to pay for this shit.

[DeadManInc]

1. they better learn how to squeeze money

out of their bible

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KitchenWitch]

53. Did you *read* the post

there is a monetary price attached to raising children. Fundies seem to think that if a child is not aborted (especially a child born into poverty) that automatically and miraculously God provides for said child. Does not happen.

[Horse with no Name]

58. Oh I think he read it

:eyes:

[KitchenWitch]

61. I know

Just pointing out flaws in logic.

[FlemingsGhost]

2. More tax cuts, of course! (n/t)

Flem.

[Inland]

3. That's not important to them.

They don't care about the current crop of children, much less the unwanted ones, the physicall defective, the mentally defective. Someone else or nobody is going to pay for it. Or some charity. Or people will stop getting pregnant.

Whereas, I want to provide for women's choices either way. If you want to carry it to term, the governemnt will be there as it is with all children. If not, the government will get the fuck out of the way.

I remember that Ron Reagan's ability to balance his budget in California was pretty much dollar for dollar on the money saved from legalized abortions.

[Thtwudbeme]

4. kick

because I want some damned conservative fake but in reality atheist to come on here and explain this to me.

[tkmorris]

8. Dude I'm an Atheist

Not sure where you're going with that one quite.

Couldn't agree more with the OP though.

[Thtwudbeme]

9. I am not arguing with atheists on DU

I am "arguing" with those fake Christian dipshits that can't be bothered to goddamned read all the pro-abortion stuff in the Bible, AND whine about their stupid taxes.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tkmorris]

74. Gotcha.

Believe me, nothing disturbs me more than phony Christians who then have gall to tell me I lack morals because I'm an Atheist. I have a sister-in-law like that, drives me batshit.

[SammyWinstonJack]

110. "Fake Christian dipshits"

Calling pResident Pinhead**. And after they answer that question, maybe they could enlighten us as too which states receive the most taxpayers' dollars, and which states contribute the most tax dollars.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WhollyHeretic]

94. Yeah, those damn immoral atheists

:eyes:

Of course no religiuos people have ever been responsible for anything bad in this world.

[savemefromdumbya]

5. The Governor is paying for them out of his own pocket

[Peanutcat]

6. I thought you realized by now

They don't intend on paying anything to help people. Not for any reason whatsoever. Unless they're rich people.

[FreedomAngel82]

86. Oh of course not and it makes me sick

They expect us to have all these babies but are against national health care and social programs. Right, so what do they want? Those single poor women to live in the streets? :eyes:

[davekriss]

7. I think the weakest possible argument for pro-choice...

...is that it costs too much money to let the union of egg and sperm blossom into a human being.

I am not at all arguing against abortion with my remarks here, but you forget that those 1.4 million potential human beings would have productive capacity as well. Or put another way, it is wrong to look just at the $ cost side of what could be an analysis that includes tangible and intangible benefits as well.

A better argument is insistence that a women has (should have) absolute sovereignty over her own body (as should a man over his own body). No other person, whether directly or mediated by a state, should be able to impose their will within those boundaries. Where else would one draw the line?

(There's a whole argument to make here about the adjudication of competing rights, but in the end a female's right to bodily sovereignty weighs heavily in favor of pro-choice. At least that is how I see it.)

[Yupster]

105. Agree Davekriss

Pro-choice here too, but with arguments for the pro-choice position like this one, I can see why the argument is losing even with majority support throughout the country.

Shouldn't be taken care of because he/she would be too expensive?

What kind of argument is that?

Lots of people are expensive to take care of. The disabled are expensive. So are the aged and infirmed. So are children born to poor unmarried mothers.

Think of all the tax money we could save on medicare alone if we killed everyone over age 75.

This is truly one of the lamest arguments that could be brought up to support the pro-choice position.

[wickerwoman]

108. I think it's an important supplemental argument though...

How can you talk about abortion without talking about the reason the vast majority of women have them?

Money. Or rather, the lack thereof.

If a single eighteen year old could earn a living wage in this country and healthcare was free how many abortions do you think we'd see each year? I'm betting a hell of a lot less.

I think this exposes where the right is coming from on this. It's not dewy-eyed concern for the hapless unborn. If that were true they'd be spending their free time fighting for universal healthcare, a higher minimum wage, free daycare, etc. etc. instead of shooting doctors. It's about punishing those sluts for not keeping their knees togther. The thing is- it's not in society's immediate interest to legislate what women do with their knees. It's not a crime to have sex out of wedlock. And it's not in society's interest to pay for a large population of unwanted (and hence emotionally scarred, less productive, economically disadvantaged, potentially criminal) citizens.

Nobody is saying let's have more abortions and cut costs. The real argument is put up or shut up- if you don't want to pay to support the babies, don't force women to have them.

[davekriss]

109. The hypocrisy of the Right is beside the point...

...a fallacious red herring (I refer to the well established fact that the Right's "compassion" ends at the moment of birth).

But to carry your line of argument to some possible conclusions, someone on the Right (or anyone anti-choice) could challenge you by saying, well, the disabled individual confined to a wheel chair after an unfortunate accident is just too expensive to keep alive, so off to the showers with 'em (something that happened to someone in my wife's family in Nazi Germany). Or, to continue, the youngest child is just too expensive to maintain now that mommy is unemployed, so euthanize him. Or this child has an IQ under 70 and therefore will not add value to the Fatherland, so starve the dummy to death in the camps. Or this fetus, potentially born to a destitute single mother in a poor third-world nation, will likely live a shortened life of misery and deprivation before expiring of some easily-curable illness of poverty, so better to cut off the spark of life now before it is born.

But you know, even children born to the slums of Bombay still laugh and play. What appears to be a life not worth living to us might be a precious jewel to the one who gets to live it, despite its challenges.

I understand you would argue that a zygote or blastula or even a fetus is not a person, not yet a human being, so it should not be granted the same rights as the unlucky fellow in the wheelchair, and that point has (some) merit. So let me qualify the circumstance further to see where you stand: What if the wheelchair-bound could not mutter a word nor lift a finger in response to actions you might take, though could smile and survive on a feeding tube, would you say that the high-cost breathing body before you is no longer a human being and cart it out with the daily trash?

Does the fact that a zygote has only the potential to become a human being differ from another who was once what you'd define as fully human but is no more? So you could harm the first but not the latter? Or would you harm all (the zygote, blastula, or fetus, the wheelchair-bound, the son of an unemployed mother, the low IQ child, the baby born to a poor caste)? You must mean all if you're being logically consistent.

I just don't see the utilitarian argument for abortion as compelling. If that's all we had to say on the matter, I would be anti-choice (and I am not).

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[skipos]

11. How many children do you plan to adopt? nt

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Heddi]

13. How many are you in the process of adopting now?

If you can "handle" one or two, why haven't you already adopted one or two yet? Are you in the process of adopting? Are the children you're interested in adopting...I mean "handling" perfectly white? Or are you interested in the non-white, drug addicted, physically and mentally handicapped ones? You know--the ones that generally linger in foster and state care until they're 18 and turned out on the stree with no resources or family to speak of?

Are those you're interested in "handling" from America? Or is it easier for you to go overseas where there are lax adoption laws?

Interesting you use the word "handle" instead of more....appropriate (?) words like:

love
care for
bring into my home
share my life with

etc etc etc

[skipos]

19. Republicans are only concerned with the fetus, once it is out of the womb

they don't give a shit.

[Heddi]

22. OH I know that for sure

but this....poster....said they could "handle" one or two..not "adopt" or "Care for" or "love" or "bring into my home". Handle. Like it's a pot of dasies or a sack of leaves. Handle. Interesting for someone who's so concerned about innocent babies and choice and responsibility.

handle.

yeah.

I wanted to know this poster's plans on what KIND of child they'd "handle". I have many doubts it would be the children that were most at risk for being aborted. For some reason, I invision their child's name would be Perfect Lilly White Jr......and not Cerebral Palsy Mixed Race Learning Disability III......

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Heddi]

30. I trust that I'm far older than you

in years, maturity, and experience.

At least if you're so concerned about "innocent babies" try to use terms that convey love and emotion for that child--not a term used to describe what you do with a load of groceries....

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[skipos]

64. When a woman is raped by her brother, she is responsible for the fetus?

[okieinpain]

75. uh most of those seeking an abortion are by themselves. there

is no father. why don't the repugs pass a law requiring any male that gets a female pregnant has to provide 50% of his income until the child is 21, or get 5 years in jail.

[FreedomAngel82]

90. But what about gang rapes?

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Heddi]

26. For you, maybe

not for everyone. If adoption was such a benefit, why are there children that linger in foster and state care from the time they're born until the time they turn 18? Why are there children who have NEVER been adopted?

So there's alot of people putting babies up for adoption (noble, in your eyes), but not so many adopting them.

Or is the "adoption is preferable to abortion" argument meant to be:

"Putting a child up for adoption is preferable to having an abortion. But don't expect anyone to adopt the child"

[kevinbgoode]

103. Republicans are picky about the children they adopt, too. .

they have to have the proper skin color....after all, isn't it a fundie group that sells dark-skinned American babies to families overseas?

[Lone_Star_Dem]

35. Currently there are children in need of homes living in foster and state

housing. Many are there due to the mothers choice not to have an abortion. Please, if you have the room in your home and heart for two more children give them a future worth living.

This isn't an issue that might need to be addressed in the future, its real and it's already an issue in our society. Don't come here and talk about what you "could" do, get off your lying ass and DO IT!

[skipos]

37. So WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO ADOPT?

[skipos]

16. I would like to know your plans, not how many you can handle.

You are demanding that women who are raped, even raped by their brother or father, give birth to the child that they don't want. I want to hear your plans. When will you drive out Dakothanger and adopt?

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Heddi]

29. Have you ever been raped?

Please get back to us when you do.

Until then, please do not place yourself in the unelected position to speak on behalf of women who have been raped.

In your argument, there are only 2 guilty parties:
child (fetus)
rapist

Is the woman guilty? Why does she have to bear further pain because of a rape? Why is she punished for actions she did not consent to? Are you saying that all women should be on contraceptives from the time of menarche through menopause in the event that they are raped?

I would love to hear you tell your mother, wife, daughter, sister that the impregnation that occured due to rape is their burden, and their burden alone to carry. I'm sure they'll be pleased as punch at your progressive and selfless attitude.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Heddi]

36. Stay on track. You were talking about rape

now you're talking about convenience.

Which would you like to debate? First you asked who is guilty in a rape? The child (fetus) or the rapist.

Now, when faced with the reality of the situation, you go to "convenience".

Please. Try to stay on track. Ritalin once a day, my friend. just one pill a day. Not that hard.

[skipos]

34. I understand your logic

A woman is raped by her brother. You want to force her to have the disfigured baby she doesn't want and she didn't ask for and she didn't deserve. But you have no interest in adopting the child for yourself. How very big of you.

Republicans: "do what we say with that fetus, but don't ask us for help with that baby."

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[skipos]

41. I want the raped woman to make the decision on the matter, do you?

[sandnsea]

18. Only 1,399,998 to go

Certainly the vast majority would take care of their own children, just like they do now. But just as in any imperfect world, like say when a hurricane strikes a population of a million, then the adults are no longer in a position to care for themselves or their children. Or when illness strikes, physical or mental. Or when their job gets outsourced. Or when some idiotic President sends their parents off to war, leaving the child an orphan. Or when a law is passed that sends doctors to jail, leaving yet another batch of parentless children.

Life isn't a Disneyland ride. Real people have real problems that are usually out of their control. Including unplanned pregnancies. We will never end abortion, no reason to make desperate women and their doctors criminals.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Heddi]

32. The topic is how many abortions WON'T be performed

and how many children will be put up for adoption, k?

I know it's hard math, with all those zeroes and commas and such....

[Kali]

71. .

:popcorn:

[Heddi]

17. oh and by the way

if you're going to get into an argument regarding medical procedures, it would be helpful if you could use correct medical terminology:

Baby refers to something that has been born. Out of the womb.

Fetus refers to anything that is not born, and still inside the womb.

So therefore, for an abortion to take place, nothing is happening with "babies", since abortion (by definition) refers to a procedure that takes place before birth. If birth hasn't happened, there ain't no babies.

Just want to clear that up for you.....

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

23. Just So You Know, My Mother Was On Birth Control And Had Me Anyway.

She made the right choices at the time to not have more children, as it was potentially dangerous to her medically. It wasn't the choices that was the problem, it was circumstance outside of the choice. She was against abortion, however, and had me anyway (still not sure if it was the right call LOL), but that isn't the point. The point is that lumping all mothers who have abortions into a group of being irresponsible and had made the wrong choice somehow, is just false on its face and severely misguided.

[drhilarius]

31. Ah yes, the responsibility of a 14 year old rape or...

incest victim. I'm sure she can secure a wonderful job with a grade school education. We must end the blastocyst holocaust.

on edit: oops. i posted before i realized the only people who get abortions are lazy, whorish ghetto mamas who live on welfare. :sarcasm:

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[skipos]

44. When are you adopting?

[Heddi]

66. What %% of women who had abortions allowed you to look @ their med records

Since you're all up on percentages, why don't you tell us. It's not our responsibility to provide the proof you desire.

Secondly, how many medical records of women who have had abortions have you had the privy of examining? What percentage of women give no reason for an abortion? What is the percentage of unreported rapes? Would it not be logical that if a rape isn't reported to police, it most likely won't be reported to medical providers as well?

And since I"m sure you have absolutely zero experience in the health or medical field, I can tell you that there is no compunction for a woman (or a man, or anyone) to advise a health care professional of something such as incest or rape unless it has unnecessary bearing on their care. Why does a patient's doctor need to know that her pregnancy may have been caused by her boyfriend vs. being caused by her brother, or uncle, or pastor?

Please. Let me know how you have such privvy access to the medical records of women around the country. I'm sure we'd all be glad to know such an enlightened and intelligent fellow like yourself finds it within your humble means to dictate which medical procedures should and shouldn't be allowed, and under what circumstances.

[Kali]

77. well, I'll bite

hell yes an abortion is easier than raising a kid. What does that have to do with anything?

oops already gone....enjoy the crust

[Dave Reynolds]

91. Probably about the same percentage as

"partial-birth" abortions.

Which is a fictional procedure, just red meat for the anti-choicers.

[CornField]

62. Women have abortions when they feel there is no other alternative

That is, women who do not have a soft place to fall back on are more likely to have an abortion when an unwanted pregnancy occurs. This is for several reasons:

• The woman may have other children who already depend on her
  
• The woman will lose income/livlihood if pregnancy becomes high risk and/or for simple maternity leave
  
• The woman has no social net to save her and her children
  
  
  
  • She might risk losing her existing children
    
  • She might end up on welfare
    
  • She might be shunned by existing social networks (including church and family) when the pregnancy is announced
    
  
  
• The woman may lose existing scholarships or other opportunities which would enhance her long-term situation
  
• The woman may have a history of difficult and/or high risk pregnancy
  
  
  
  • She might lose her existing employment due to pregnancy complications which result in an inability to perform her duties
    
  • She might incur massive hospital, doctor and other medical expenses due to the pregnancy
    
  • State agencies might move to take away existing children if she is shown to be unable to care for them
    
  
  

That list only scratches the surface...

The fact of the matter is that if women - of all walks of life - felt they were prepared to care for themselves during pregnancy, to care for existing children during pregnancy, to care for their children following birth, to care for their financial well-being while on maternity leave, to care for their children when they return back to work, et al -- you'd see a drastic reductions in the number of abortions in this nation.

The fact of the matter is that while Republicans shout down from their moral high-ground, the women in this nation "just keep swimming" in order to pay the bills, find good childcare, rush children from one activity to another, complain about ineffective birth control, clean their homes, take a few classes on the side, make sure everyone has their teeth brushed at bedtime and, in general, keep the country afloat.

If Republicans -- or any pro-life group -- truly cared about the WOMEN, they'd be up in arms about the anti-women policies in place and being put in place in our nation. They'd be screaming from the hilltops about cuts in after school childcare funding, reductions in educational funding (including higher education), changes in sexual education policies at our public schools and the overall infiltration of people who don't really give a damn about mother and child so long as their private moralistic view of the world isn't threatened.

If people really gave a damn, they'd know that in the Bible they hold so dear, Jesus instructs about poverty over 3,000 times.

Now, I'd prefer it if you'd be so kind as to take your anti-woman, anti-child, anti-human rhetoric and shove it up your too tight ass.

[The Traveler]

93. The problem is

we disagree as to what constitutes a baby, and that leads us inevitably into the colorful zone seperating science and faith. There is no Biblical support that I can find for the notion that life begins at conception. Hebrew mystics contemporary with Jesus held that "ensoulment" (the event that defines the inception of human life) happened with the first breath. (I myself think that when anything resembling consciousness is possible, that is where we should draw the line ... that would be when the neocortex forms, near the beginning of second trimester if I recall correctly. But there is no Biblical support for my position.)

The view that life begins at conception seems to have emerged from the Roman church's adoption of certain Greek philosophies. Greek natural philosophers at one point developed a model of conception that regarded sperm as being filled with itty bitty little fully formed people. Thus, male masturbation resulted in mass murder and was mortal sin ... bizarre, but that is how one Bible scholar (a Jesuit) explained the matter to me, and I have read similar commentary in texts.

Abortion was certainly practiced during the time of Jesus (shit, they were doing Caesarian section deliveries already) so the fact that the Lord makes no mention of the topic is significant. And this is what places the anti-abortion crowd on such dangerous spritiual ground, for if Jesus disagreed with the teaching of the Bible scholars of his era he was seldom shy about expressing it.

Note that worship involves the devotion of emotional energy to a topic or principle. In this case, so-called Christians in the anti-abortion camp are devoting enormous energies and resources to enforce principles first developed by the followers of the Greek pantheon. Thus, they are following the teachings of false gods. Yeah, verily, the anti-abortionists are idolators by their practices and shall burn in the fire eternal, for they choose not to heed the advice of the Christ (like, for example, care for the poor, etc.) and prefer to follow the heathen teaching of Zeus.

Repent, sinner. (Sorry. Couldn't resist. :evilgrin: ) It is not your place to come between a woman, her conscience, and her relationship with the God of her understanding. That mediation, that atonement (if any is indeed necessary) is between her Savior and herself and you and the state have no place in the matter. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's ... but a woman's body does not belong to the state.

Not in a free country, anyway.

Oh, and by the way, bubba, you do NOT get to interpret the Bible for me, nor give your interpretation the force of law, nor jail those who share my religious views and live according to the light of their own understanding of God. Not without a helluva fight.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

21. Justifying abortion based on the cost is going to fall on deaf ears

They just won't hear it.

They just cant passed the emotions of it and ignore logic like dollars and sense.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[skipos]

49. Is it worth you adopting it?

[Freedom_Aflaim]

87. damn. I hate when replies to me get deleted before

I get a chance to read and then alert on them :)

Just as well, I suspect I know who and what the post was.

[bleedingheart]

24. It is still a personal choice...and I am sure that finances figure into it

many a woman has been driven to a clinic by her husband because one more mouth to feed would break their finances...or because they have no insurance.

It isn't the overall picture...it is the here and now type circumstances that people must confront..

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[skipos]

42. What are your adoption plans?

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[skipos]

47. So you tried already? How did that go?

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[skipos]

57. If I force a woman to carry a baby, I will gladly adopt it. Will you?

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TimeChaser]

67. So,

I bet it's your own personal religious beliefs that make you consider a human fetus "living." Guess what? My beliefs say otherwise. Why should yours trump mine?

[Heddi]

69. If you support anti-abortion legislation

then you are forcing women to make a certain choice, or more accurately, forcing women to NOT make a certain choice.

Seriously. You say you're in college. Take a logic 101 class...it would make your arguments flow *SO* much easier.

[skipos]

70. So you decide her alternatives and she gets to choose between them?

How is this not forcing her exactly?

1of4, George Bush passes a law that gives you two choices: you can grow a beard or you can grow sideburns. You MUST choose one. Does this law force you to grow facial hair? I mean, you do get two choices.

[Fleshdancer]

55. as a side note...

I wonder if agreeing to higher taxes and adoption/foster parenting is a sign that conservatives really do agree with Hillary Clinton. After all, it DOES take a village.

[Fleshdancer]

50. what are the current foster parent laws in your state?

have you looked into it?

[Heddi]

52. Yes. Exactly.

How many have you adopted, and how many are you in the process of adopting now?

Which country will you be adopting from? Will they be home-grown, or will you go to China or Russia or another country with lax adoption laws?

Do you plan on doing your best to keep siblings in foster care together as a family unit? What are your plans on adopting non-white, non-perfect children? How about children with severe physical and mental handicaps? How about the ones that were born with drug-and-alcohol fetal syndromes? Any plans for older children that have been abandoned by the "right to life" crowd and are 13 and older and have spent their entire lives being shuffled from house to house? How much time are you willing to put into raising a child with psychological issues like depression, schizophrenia, abandonment issues, etc?

Just want to know...you know...since the concern is with all those innocent little babies....or are they only innocent until they're born and too bothersome, expensive, and time-consuming after birth?

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KitchenWitch]

56. Apparently one could ask the same of you...

:eyes:

[Lone_Star_Dem]

68. You criticize because you have such superior debating skills, right?

You're just waiting for the right moment to whip them out is all. Please, don't be long I'm all a flutter waiting on you to dazzle me with your intellect.

[Fleshdancer]

48. we both know that wasn't the point of the original post

as a conservative, are you ok with the increased social expenses of unsupported babies? Are you willing to pay more taxes or better yet, how many kids will you adopt? How many kids have you already adopted? Certainly we can all agree that it takes money to raise kids, right?

[Heddi]

60. And therein lies the hypocrisy

it's WRONG to abort a child because of the expense needed to raise that child

it's OKAY to not adopt a child because of the expense needed to raise that child

It's WRONG for some people to choose whether or not to be a parent

it's OKAY for some people to choose whether or not to be a parent

Up is down, green is red, etc etc etc

[FlaGranny]

88. That's the real question -

how much are they willing to pay? Will they gladly support these all these unwanted children to adulthood in their own homes? Will they pay for their medical insurance and doctor visits? Will they make sure they have food to eat and an education? Will they make sure that each and every child has a chance in life? I'm of the opinion that they want that to be the responsibility of the woman forced to have a child she didn't want.

Self-righteousness prevails amongst small-minded conservatives. They never accept the responsibility for the results of imposing their own beliefs on others.

[nonconformist]

78. What gives you the right to make medical decisions for other people? nt

[Deja Q]

63. THEY don't. Their mantra is self-sufficiency. Afford yourself, et al.

Dog-eat-dog world.

Nobody helps each other. Too busy looking out for #1.

Until THEY need help, then they change their mindset completely.

Catch them talking about personal ethics and use it against them if the time comes. Show them to their faces what hypocrites they are - and enjoy it while they squirm to think of a catchy response.

[Heddi]

72. it's different when it's them

it's different when THEY are the ones under the spotlight. Then personal responsibility out the door.

Look at the whole Iraq War. GW, hero of "Personal Responsibility" passes the buck---I was given faulty intelligence, etc etc. Hey, George, take fucking responsibility for your actions, right? That's what you preach to the country.....

but they cannot see beyond their own narrow world view, where everyone lives like they do, everyone has the same choices they do, everyone is the same as they are. All. Drones.

[Heddi]

73. At least 1 troll banned in this thread

such a shame. I felt like a cat with a stuffed mouse. All fluff and no substance....but so fun to bat around with one paw....

[Heddi]

76. TWO trolls banned in this thread

and their logic was so...overwhelming. I feel completely re-educated. Man. I hate this place. DU sucks. Democrats revel in baby murder. I'm all for adoption, as long as someone else is doing the adoption. Personal responsibility. Innocent Babies!!!MURDER!! GARGYLES!!! :rofl:

[TimeChaser]

79. BABY KILLARZZZ!

:rofl:

[Lone_Star_Dem]

81. They were sent back to the cesspit they crawled out of

It's going to take a week to get the smell out of GD. :rofl:

[Maddy McCall]

96. Were they new DUers or had they racked up...

very many posts?

I missed these two. Probably a good thing, though.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

99. They created the accounts to mess with this thread

They were a couple of none too bright ones from a conservative cesspit site.

[Maddy McCall]

101. Thanks.

:hi:

[KitchenWitch]

82. That's DARK SIDED!!!!!!

:rofl:

RIP 10f4 and CelticGrl

[Heddi]

89. DORK sided...

sheesh, get it right you baby killing democratic lesbian black pinko communist stinky hippy baby killin' gargyle! DORK SIDED! GARGOYLES!

[KitchenWitch]

92. Moran!

:rofl:

[MiniMandaRuth]

85. Hear, hear!

"But, teh babies are defenseless. I mean, the mama won't want it anyways, but it will STILL have a good home!"

:rofl: some people....

[MiniMandaRuth]

80. It's not even the question of money...

It's the womans right to choose. So, Mr. Senator from X state, you say you don't want abortion to be legal? Well, get a womb transplant and go have a baby.

It makes me sick. Some people, from say.... Houston, think that THEY have the right to decide what to do with a womans body in Seattle.


:grr:

[FreedomAngel82]

83. And what about all the unwanted babies in adoption homes???

Who's going to adopt them?

[JI7]

84. once again dumb shit freepers either don't get it or ignore it

it's all about "i will gladly adopt" and other shit. not answer about paying taxes to support these kids. because there are many kids who are put up for adoption yet not adopted. the state which needs tax money is in charge of this.

none of these asses responded to that question.

[Katherine Brengle]

95. Whoah--did I miss a freeper? Lots of DMs... n/t

[LeaveIraqNow]

97. Thats a flawed logic.

If that was the logic republicans used they would never have any children. Not wanting to pay taxes does not mean they outright don't want to spend money, they just hate giving it to the government.

Money should never be a reason for abortion.

[TimeChaser]

98. I don't think that's exactly what they're trying to say

I think they're trying to say is "Where's all the money to support the 1,400,000 new kids a year waiting to be adopted?"

[Bok_Tukalo]

100. Why do you assume every abortion is a baby waiting for adoption?

And the resources to support the 1.4 million aborted (if that number is real) would come from the same place that the resources which support the 4 million individuals that are born; from their family and the State.

[kevinbgoode]

104. a..hem. . . .not quite the family and the State

since Repukes can't stand the idea that gays have picked up the slack on the throwaway babies that "compassionate conservatives" found to be too troublesome . . .so they need to ban the gay adoptions, have a real good time trying to convince US that we are gonna fork over money to support irresponsible breeding behaviors.

[kevinbgoode]

102. They'll make the gays pay for them. . .

they certainly aren't going to fork over one red cent themselves - they are Republicans - personal responsibility doesn't pertain to themselves.

[NVMojo]

106. Cost to raise a child and then lose him or her in a neocon war?

priceless ...

[The Straight Story]

107. So about, 5k per year, or less than 500 a month

Maybe what we should do is when kids are at a decent young age explain to them in ways they grasp what 500 a month means. After taxes of course. $3.13/hr for 40 hours a week (before taxes). Equate that to widgets they have to produce per hr (or perhaps barbie dolls) - just for fun say 5 per hour.

So we end up with - if you get pregnant you will have to produce 800 barbies a month, or 172,800 barbies until your child is 18. Ask them how they would like to spend the next 18 years on an assembly line making dolls to pay for something which only lasted intially a few minutes (ie, sex). No to mention when you get home you have to take care of the child. And weekends are shot. So when they are in their 30's they may be free of it all :)