...because you are about to be paying for other peoples' abortions. Nelson lost my vote.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Statistically speaking, 3/4 of them will be.SEREMAKER wrote:
because we all know they will turn into criminals
lolCybargs wrote:
If you're thinking about an abortion, you will not be a fit parent anyway.
Bullshit. Show me the statistic.Cybargs wrote:
Statistically speaking, 3/4 of them will be.SEREMAKER wrote:
because we all know they will turn into criminals
Why would anyone want an abortion? Because they are unfit to raise a child due to bad relationships, age and economic issues. If you're thinking about an abortion, you will not be a fit parent anyway.
I don't think I would trust a figure that says 'x% of babies that would have been aborted have grown into criminals.' since that sounds like total bullshit and the methods for data collection probably wouldn't be much better. Do they ask the mothers if they think, later on, that they should have had an abortion? There are obvious problems with that.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Bullshit. Show me the statistic.Cybargs wrote:
Statistically speaking, 3/4 of them will be.SEREMAKER wrote:
because we all know they will turn into criminals
Why would anyone want an abortion? Because they are unfit to raise a child due to bad relationships, age and economic issues. If you're thinking about an abortion, you will not be a fit parent anyway.
and, the inverse too - how if someone's against abortion, how they can be for capital punishment.CC-Marley wrote:
I don't get how the same person that is against capital punishment can be all for killing unborn babies. Sounds ass backwards to me.
The baby did nothing except come into existence. A criminal on death row? There is a difference.burnzz wrote:
and, the inverse too - how if someone's against abortion, how they can be for capital punishment.CC-Marley wrote:
I don't get how the same person that is against capital punishment can be all for killing unborn babies. Sounds ass backwards to me.
there is a difference in the lives involved - fetus, < nine months, criminal > nine months +.DBBrinson1 wrote:
The baby did nothing except come into existence. A criminal on death row? There is a difference.
Except the fetus isn't really a baby yet. If the fetus can't survive outside the womb, is it really 'alive'?DBBrinson1 wrote:
The baby did nothing except come into existence. A criminal on death row? There is a difference.burnzz wrote:
and, the inverse too - how if someone's against abortion, how they can be for capital punishment.CC-Marley wrote:
I don't get how the same person that is against capital punishment can be all for killing unborn babies. Sounds ass backwards to me.
when does existence start for a fetus?DBBrinson1 wrote:
The baby did nothing except come into existence. A criminal on death row? There is a difference.burnzz wrote:
and, the inverse too - how if someone's against abortion, how they can be for capital punishment.CC-Marley wrote:
I don't get how the same person that is against capital punishment can be all for killing unborn babies. Sounds ass backwards to me.
In capital punishment its the state that is doing the killing, which is really a mob individuals ganging up on another individual. Life in prison with no parole achieves the same thing, with one huge exception, exhonerations mean something when the guy is still alive.CC-Marley wrote:
I don't get how the same person that is against capital punishment can be all for killing unborn babies. Sounds ass backwards to me.
It's me paying for somebody's abortion that I have a problem with. Killing babies due to it being an inconvenience to Mommy is disgusting. I don't want to pay for that.Turquoise wrote:
All this uproar about taxes involving abortion should also include the fact that it costs taxpayers a lot more money to pay for the upkeep of orphanages and for families on welfare than it does to pay for an abortion.
So, make up your minds pro-life taxpayers. Is this really an issue of cost or of morals?
If it's cost, then support abortion, because it's cheaper.
If it's morals, then support social programs.
You can't have it both ways.
such as? And terrible? You're judging me because I don't want to pay for someone's abortion? Rich.Mekstizzle wrote:
pro life people are also paying tax for loads of things that bring about death other than abortions, don't pick and choose your silly little moral values based on your political affiliations, you people are all terrible.
Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2009-12-21 12:09:26)
You willing to personally adopt their offspring then or pay for the upkeep of orphanages? Frankly, the kids that would come out of a home where the parents would've aborted their kid if they could afford it, don't really have a happy future ahead of them. Who has abortions? Poor people mostly, or people who would become poor if they had a kid. What do kids of poor parents generally grow up to be? Poor people themselves.DBBrinson1 wrote:
It's me paying for somebody's abortion that I have a problem with. Killing babies due to it being an inconvenience to Mommy is disgusting. I don't want to pay for that.Turquoise wrote:
All this uproar about taxes involving abortion should also include the fact that it costs taxpayers a lot more money to pay for the upkeep of orphanages and for families on welfare than it does to pay for an abortion.
So, make up your minds pro-life taxpayers. Is this really an issue of cost or of morals?
If it's cost, then support abortion, because it's cheaper.
If it's morals, then support social programs.
You can't have it both ways.