Mandatory Abortions

[Warrior74]

why not just make absent fathers pay for their children rather than let society foot the bill?? Im pretty sure condom use would shoot up, stds decrease

How about this. If society refuses to foot the bill, they might make better choices about who to sleep with and get knocked up by? If you know you will be on your own or living with whatever relative that will take you in then you might not get knocked up by losers. You might tell the 'gina tingles to STFU and look for a good mate for real survival and prosperity. You might be ruled by harsh logic instead of whimsical emotion.

 

[The Assistant]

The mandatory abortions would not be subjective though. It could be a strict rule - If a woman is either under 21 or unmarried, then she is not allowed to have a child.

It's not like government will be judging each case and making decisions that way........the rules could be set in stone, and voila, you cut down on the disease of single mothers, and you certainly cut down on the disease of women who are too young popping out babies.

19 and pregnant? Sorry way too young, abortion.
30 and unmarried? Sorry, no stable family for child, abortion.

22 and married? Good, much better chance for a good family life, you are free to carry on with the pregnancy.


I really see nothing wrong with taking away THIS right from women. Just make it a law........there are already other laws in place that restrict certain decision making. For instance, a man by law is usually not allowed to have sex with an underage girl. THAT right there is the government setting a rule in stone, and enforcing it on men. So, why not make a rule set in stone and enforce it on women?

 

[Warrior74]

Of course it would just making having babies illegal for the majority of women. Who would snitch? The gynocologist? The OBGYN? The doctors? Someone has to snitch, and that person would be avoided like the plauge. Women who got knocked up would do the opposite of the old days, no more back alley abortions but back alley deliveries. Swinging the pendulum from one extreme to another. Remember the law of unintended consequences.

 

[5string]

I agree. That would be the 5th Amendment: "No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."




According to FoxNews, that is the end of everything:
http://www.foxsmallbusinesscenter.com/finance-accounting/2011/01/13/small-business-luck-illinois/

But if you're one of the many businesses to whom the broke ass state of Illinois owes money, then the tax increase is a great idea. The state is 2-3 years behind on Medicaid payments to doctors and currently offering 5-10% to settle. Those doctors accepted the Medicaid card in good faith that the state would later pay them what was, by the way, an already massively discounted rate before they stopped paying altogether. Now most specialists have stopped taking the state medical card, because they have given up hope of Illinois ever paying them.

Tax increases are not a good idea.

The better idea is to cut the fvckin spending.

This thread really gets me goin'. I know a gal approaching 40. Three babies by three different daddies. One abortion. Get's 600.00 per month in food stamps. Buys her food at the most expensive grocery. Sirloins, seafood, prepared foods for the kids. Will sell you 200.00 in food stamps in exchange for 100.00 cash. Who the F spends 600.00 per month on groceries? Even with three kids! She's been on unemployment for 2.5 yrs and Obama keeps extending the benefits. She's fully capable of working. Also got some scammer medicaid couselor to say one of her kids is mentally disabled. I know him, and he's not disabled. She get's another 400.00 per month for that from social security disability. Medicaid pays for ALL of her "family" medical care. All this comes from our taxes. We as a society enable this lifestyle.

Sad part is that this sh!t breeds itself. Think her kids are likely to grow up to be hard working folks? My bet is they will have developed the same entitlement mentality as their parents and will become additional tumors attached to the taxpayers and Federal government.

We should help those who truly need it while at the same time not providing so much that the desire to work, support your family and otherwise be productive is not eliminated from the equation.

 

[scrouds]

I have a simpel, cold blooded solution to the welfare mom phenonemen. Can't afford to care for your kids? Now you can't keep them. Get rid of welfare, and if you can't take care of your kids, we take them away and place them somewhere safer.

 

[5string]

Agreed.

Charity is how people in trouble get help, not Government.

It works because individuals are very giving and know when someone really is in trouble. It also works because it is the path TOWARDS freedom, as opposed to the Totalitarian path of income/asset seizure.

Danger....I was going to rep you for that but I can't as I already gave you rep recently. Must have been for some other extremely wise and intelligent sh!t you said in another thread. :yes:

 

[Noodles]

Charity is how people in trouble get help, not Government.

To an extent. But global situations can cause repercussions (like the global credit crisis) that pull the rug out from under normal hard working people. Without the Government stepping in to temporarily prop them up, they and their business will go under, leading to job losses, lack of spending due to job losses, and in theory recession and a depression.

But I imagine you're talking about the on a much smaller scale. For instance, how about if an individual loses their job? Should the Government step in to help them with some form of payment until they find something else? But then if that payment is too generous, why work?

The problem with getting rid of the social safety net completely is that if the Government doesn't catch these people when they fall, what happens to them? You don't care? Well...I seen this happen in a lot of nasty countries - they steal, the loot, they band together in small, then larger, criminal (later called rebel) gangs and take what they want. And the money you would have spent in taxes you pay in increased insurance or personal protection. Without someone to keep the bottom falling out of society, it will. Then things like kidnapping, robbery etc. seem a lot more appealing.

It's a balancing act. It's not fair. But life isn't.

 

[Iceberg]

If you don't believe me, look around and you will see that the first to riot in any situation are those that belong to the "free-$hit" army. Typically these people never had the motivation to try and get something for themselves and instead chose to get it the "easy" way, simply because they could. Now if you try to end the benefits, it becomes a problem.

Historically, there was no "free-$hit" army to riot, and thus it did not happen . You either stepped up and got to work, or you lived as a beggar in the street.

It's time to step up.

But is that really true?

I know I'm making an obvious statement, but if it were really that simple, that's how things would work.

Cut support, and people will have no choice but to work. But work where? In past generations, a uneducated, unskilled man go could go to the (Whatever) factory apply for a job, and get paid a decent salary to build things with his hands. America is no longer a manufacturing country. That's an important truth. We have evolved beyond serving that role in the world. It's not a good thing or a bad thing, but it's a reality.

"Historically, there was no free s**t army to riot?" Hell, man....Historic people have been complaining about the poor since humans developed currency. This isn't new. And a flip through the history books will show you governments who have been toppled by neglecting the poor. Leaving them to beg. And assuming that decent-paying jobs will materialize through necessity. The word necessity actually leads me to my final point....we no longer need unskilled laborers. A man might have been able to feed a family by joining an assembly line and putting together shovels all day. In 2011, that job is done in Malaysia somewhere. The jobs available to poor Americans won't pay enough to support you in 2011's economy.

I'm not claiming to know the solution to this. But I do know that things are a little more complex than, "Stop helping them and they'll get jobs."

 

[tihash]

In case you don't know, about half the country thinks abortion is murder.

What next? Euthanizing the elderly and the disabled? Go read about Nazi Germany and then tell me if you think mandatory abortions is a good idea.

 

[Veridin]

To an extent. But global situations can cause repercussions (like the global credit crisis) that pull the rug out from under normal hard working people. Without the Government stepping in to temporarily prop them up, they and their business will go under, leading to job losses, lack of spending due to job losses, and in theory recession and a depression.

The credit crisis in the U.S. was caused by the Community Reinvestment Act, invented under Jimmie Carter in 1977 and then reinforced by Bill Clinton. It forced banks to give out home loans to the "underprivileged," read minorities in particular. To a too-low interest. If the banks had been allowed to set an interest corresponding to the risk of these loans, there would have been much fewer of them. But as it was, banks that didn't hand out enough of what we now call "subprime" loans were not granted permission to branch out across state lines, and do many other things. Plus they were exposed as greedy and insensitive to inner-city needs in the media.

Read and learn, an explanation and warning from as early as the year 2000:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html

"Watchdog" groups like ACORN were funded by tax money to check the banks, and when a bank didn't hand out enough subprime loans to the "underprivileged" ACORN could go to the media. This was a profitable shakedown business for them; ACORN knew that if they ran their mouths loudly in the press about banks not doing enough for "black communities," they got millions of dollars in return. Banks are sensitive to bad press and would always cave in.

Bill Clinton changed the CRA so that banks got an even harder deal: no longer would they get any points for having tried to find borrowers that could live up to the standards in troubled areas. No, only numbers mattered now: they had to fill the quota, or they would have their feet cut out from under them.

In 2003, some Senators, among them John McCain, called for a congressional investigation into the effects of the Community Reinvestment Act, which they feared would cause a financial catastrophe. But other senators, among them Barack Obama, stopped the proposal. Obama had of course had his political career launched by ACORN. That's where he did his "community organizing" that he listed as his job qualification for being president; he was part of the organization that accused banks of being greedy, capitalist and racist if they didn't hand out enough subprime loans. Not that you would hear him mention any of this business once the financial crisis had started.

-----------

Furthermore, the U.S. government kept printing money to prop up vote-buying schemes. Under Bill Clinton, Alan Greenspan in the Federal Reserve made sure to print more money than in the entire post-war period until then combined. (Note: the Federal Reserve Board members are appointed by the President.) Plus that the government just kept on borrowing from China and Japan. All this money flooding the economy made things look good, and Clinton could be reelected. John Stewart can then tell you on Daily Show how Clinton "ushered in an era of prosperity."

Bush, then, kept up the big spending and borrowing. Some "conservative" he was. Massachusetts family masquerading as Texan.

What happens when there is more money in an economy? No-brainer answer: it will be used. For buying things, and for investing. So the economy came to appear to be in a better state than it was. When people see the upscaling going on around them they want to be part of it, and so loan applications for buying homes increased; you don't want to be in a shabby home when it seems so many others are trading up. With the Community Reinvestment Act still in effect, and the banks having been hounded for decades by ACORN and other political, tax-funded groups working in concert with like-minded media, the loans kept coming.

And when finally the chickens come home to roost, just like conservatives in the Senate warned in 2003, when Barack Obama and others stopped the investigation into the CRA's effects, what happens? Of course, the leftist media proclaim that "capitalism has failed" and that banks had handed out too many loans out of pure greed. (Why did they keep the interest rates at too-low levels for subprime loans, if they were motivated by greed, not pressure? Oops, better not ask about that. Right?)

 

[The Assistant]

In case you don't know, about half the country thinks abortion is murder.

What next? Euthanizing the elderly and the disabled? Go read about Nazi Germany and then tell me if you think mandatory abortions is a good idea.

Murder is illegal and you go to jail for it.....abortion is legal and an acceptable way to make sure that people who make mistakes don't mess up their lives. Nobody cares about the nutcases who consider abortion "murder", those kind of people should have no say in what kind of laws get made and passed.

What does killing the elderly have to do with ANY of this? Why are you bringing in random examples that have nothing to do with the point at hand? What are you, an illogical stupid chick?

 

[tihash]

Nobody cares about the nutcases who consider abortion "murder", those kind of people should have no say in what kind of laws get made and passed.

The more you speak, the less intelligent you sound.

And the elderly are not so random. It is called a slippery slope. You are now advocating disenfranchising large portions of the citizenry based on your subjective assessment of whether their beliefs make them "nutcases."

Until about 40 years ago, abortion was illegal in many places and "you went to jail for it." Again, how about you learn something before you speak.

 

[Pierce]

Abortion is wrong. I hate people that try to make an exception for abortion. The only people that do that are people who had to actually have had one.

 

[The Assistant]

can someone tell me how is it moral or "right" to allow some idiot 17 year old high school girl to go through with having an unwanted baby? Any time I see some of these dumb-faced little broads (whether in person or tv), it makes me wonder if it should even be LEGAL for a teen to have the right to give birth to a baby...........I'm serious