Really?
A woman on AFDC doesn't get any more money by having another baby?
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Racist white people are killing black babies
- Thread starter counterfiat
- Start date
A woman on AFDC doesn't get any more money by having another baby?
Werbung:
not to the point that its profitable as ot once was.
Openmind
Well-Known Member
You sound like an interesting person, with a balanced and strong personality! I'm almost sorry to have (almost) given up posting her because of the overly aggressive, poorly referenced, and often misleading posts and attacks by the majority of extreme Right in this forum! It seems that the new "acceptable" trend is to get rid of people who do not fall within the "Tea party, Liberterian, or extreme right" policies!
Good luck to you!
Conservatives must hate that, as it would encourage abortion.
Openmind
Well-Known Member
I didn't see where he/she wanted to eliminate anyone in today's world. . .but I undertand that he/she wanted to PREVENT unwanted births.
What is wrong with that? Wouldn't it be a smart way to limit the drain of our earthly resources? Wouldn't it be a smart way to assure that every child born has enough food, and has a REAL potential for a decent life, instead of dying in infancy or childhood?
As the mother of an adopted child, I think adoption is a wonderful thing (and, yes, my daughter lived at least 2 years in a Korean orphanage before we adopted her at the age of almost 6). In fact, I think that it would be A LOT smarter to take the unwanted children out of the world's orphanage and make them our own, instead of abandonning them there, and producing more babies!
How about thinking about "eliminating" new pregnancies, starting with areas where it is OBVIOUS that there is not enough food, and/or enough health care, and/or enough education and caring for so many children to survive. . .so that many thousands die in their mother's arms from starvation and illnesses?
We ALL agree that any wanted baby is a blessing, and we all agree that abortion is not the "optimal" way to deal with unwanted pregnancies.
So. . .how about reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and, IF that "preventive" measure fails, providing easier, quicker access to EARLY term (as early as possible!) abortions, so that we do not have to go to less acceptable ways of dealing with unwanted children, and over-population?
But, I do not see where this new poster stated that he/she wanted to "ELIMINATE" anyone!. . Did I miss something?
you cannot pay people to be moral. but from a conservative standpoint, you shouldn't pay people to do anything.
Openmind
Well-Known Member
What you forget to note is that, any people "leaving" the Democratic party are NOT joining the Republican party!
And that Obama's approval poll is increasing, and his disapproval poll is decreasing.
And that the congress's approval poll is at only 9%. . .
and that NO GOP candidate consistently beats President Obama in the polls, and only a couple are head to head with him. . .occasionally!
Don't count your chicken before they hatch! I don't. . .I know it will be a tied race, and that NO ONE can predict who will be the next President!
he was clear in stating that we have too many people now. killing babies is not causing decreasing numbers so the only way forward is killing those who are no longer babies OR letting a lack of food and water handle it for us.
it is possible to reduce or eliminate unwanted pregnancies without killing anyone.
Openmind
Well-Known Member
Preventing birth, preferably before fertilization through birth control, preventing the fertilized zygote to attach to the wall of the uterus as a second solution, and early term abortion as a third solution is NOT killing babies.
And it would MOST CERTAINLY reduce the birth rate (and therefore the infant and child death rate) and thus would curb the huge increase in world population.
dems are choosing to call themselves independent but independents are moving right.
as the field further narrows the occasional will become more regular.
without candidates in any party its impossible to predict a winner.
abortion is deliberately taking innocent life. that's murder.
Openmind
Well-Known Member
Openmind
Well-Known Member
We've gone around and around on that subject. It is obviously NOT my definition of taking a life, and neither is it the legal definition.
But you obviously have the right to keep your opinion. . .as long as you realize it is NOTHING but an opinion.
Openmind
Well-Known Member
Just to add to my earlier comment in answer to the above post, here is a VERY recent article by the "Rasmussen Report," not exactly what you would call a "liberal source," by the way:
Partisan Trends
Partisan Trends: Democrats Up in November
in Politics
Thursday, December 01, 2011The number of Democrats in the United States increased by nearly two percentage points in November, while the number of Republicans held steady.
Werbung:
steveox
Well-Known Member
Then what the hell you call it then?
