Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Well, those that don't support the war or fixing potholes; still have to pay those taxes. Why should this be any different?
The war is difficult can't say much. But fixing potholes helps reduce the amount of traffic. I don't mind paying for that....but I have to help pay for an abortion which I had nothing to do with....fcked it! Pull your own weight I say.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarfHowever you could use the same logic saying that abortions help with over population, strain on the welfare system and so on.
The war is difficult can't say much. But fixing potholes helps reduce the amount of traffic. I don't mind paying for that....but I have to help pay for an abortion which I had nothing to do with....fcked it! Pull your own weight I say.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
The war is difficult can't say much. But fixing potholes helps reduce the amount of traffic. I don't mind paying for that....but I have to help pay for an abortion which I had nothing to do with....fcked it! Pull your own weight I say.
I have to help pay for the maintenance of roads that I do not use, and the public education of children that I do not have, and a war that I do not support. Too bad.
Re: Public Funding for Abortion
Originally posted by Grimm22
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-dems18jul18,1,639458.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=trueApparently, both Obama and John Edwards support funding abortions through universal healthcare.
Now considering how much of a hot topic even ALLOWING abortions is; do either of these guys actually think that they can win their parties nomination by saying that taxpayers must pay for a procedure that about half of the country is against anyway?!?
And even if you're pro-choice, do you actually believe that abortions should be publicly funded?!? 🤨
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I have to help pay for the maintenance of roads that I do not use, and the public education of children that I do not have, and a war that I do not support. [b]Too bad. [/B]
I personally don't think abortions should be funded through public money, I think that is wrong. I am pro choice but if you want an abortion you should get it with your own money. However if someone can't come up with the 300-500 to get the procedure done I have to wonder how people expect them to take care of a child?
Originally posted by SelinaAndBruceadoption.
I personally don't think abortions should be funded through public money, I think that is wrong. I am pro choice but if you want an abortion you should get it with your own money. However if someone can't come up with the 300-500 to get the procedure done I have to wonder how people expect them to take care of a child?
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
The war is difficult can't say much. But fixing potholes helps reduce the amount of traffic. I don't mind paying for that....but I have to help pay for an abortion which I had nothing to do with....fcked it! Pull your own weight I say.
That's good for you, but why should your reasoning not apply to that.
Who supports the war pays for it, those who don't....don't.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
adoption.
Because that works so well that there are no children in foster home without a chance of ever getting adopted.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
even if they are not adopted, they have a chance to become productive human beings.
Or they have a chance e(better than average) to become crack whores that suck your dick for 5 dollars.
Wait a minute...now I see why you support that. You make me sick.
Also, RJ, it seems unfair that people with less money especially should in the end be forced to first go through the harms of a pregnancy and then possibly have to pay for a child which will cost much more in the long run. If anything you want poor people to get an abortion anyways. Might reduce crime