I'm kinda sad, I was looking forward to the abortion party (#what conservatives think liberals do)...I was going to reply constructively to this thread, however this is all I could mash out.
With that idiotic analogy, I guess you want to get rid of logic and honesty. And find me a lower-income child that can live 18 years on just food stamps from the government.I'm sorry, you want to engage in an utterly monstrous violation of rights to save a few bucks on food stamps? Should we get rid of trials as well because they are too expensive?
Why, an abortion of an unwanted, severely deformed or retarded child is better for mother, child, and society.Child Birth is not an elective medical procedure, its an absolute requirement for the safety of both mother and child.
Forcing a woman to carry to term is NOT EVER a requirement. In fact, it's banned in the first two trimesters by Roe v Wade.
How is it abusive to say don't have more babies than we can possibly feed or care for? -- That's compassion, reason, intelligence.Yes, because history clearly shows us that underage girls are bigger threat than the potential abuse of letting the government control reproductive rights.
You should see a movie called Idiocracy.
I think everyone needs to take a step back and realize there's another human being involved in this decision. It blows me away how little anyone is thinking of the child on this thread. We're so worried about the parent's rights to a friggin car or paying a hospital bill that we're losing sight of the fact that the judge made the best ruling in the interests of the child. That's who matters the most. That's the only person in this entire equation that cannot control any of the circumstances her screwed up parents and grandparents put her in. Why put the child at a disadvantage from the jump? It's the parent's responsibility to care for their child. Their child is pregnant and lives under their roof. Therefore they must provide medical care and transportation to their child and in turn the grandchild. If they didn't want this responsibility they should've A) Not had a kid themselves B) Supervised their child better so that this wouldn't happen. I understand parents can't be everywhere and we'll never know the circumstances that led to their girl and the father having the opportunity to have sex. But it happened under the parent's watch. Time to pay the piper. Heck, a lot of you would hold someone accountable that was in charge of a huge gov't agency for the actions of one employee whom the leader has never met but seem to lose that on a set of parents who are in charge of one person.
“Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson
Why should one person be completely responsible for another, when they're legally allowed to do what they want.
It transfers liability to a non fault party.
I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
The United States government spends more money on defense, social security or medicare than we do on raising children. We can entirely fix our deficit problem without committing any gross violations of human rights. Your argument is absurd and morally indefensible.With that idiotic analogy, I guess you want to get rid of logic and honesty. And find me a lower-income child that can live 18 years on just food stamps from the government.
Sometimes that may be the case, but that isn't the point. People have rights in this country. For example, I think society would be better off without you spouting your political views, but I don't call for the government to sew your mouth shut because it would violate your freedom of speech.Why, an abortion of an unwanted, severely deformed or retarded child is better for mother, child, and society.
U.S. births are currently at replacement level, there is hardly a crisis of babies we can't feed or care for.How is it abusive to say don't have more babies than we can possibly feed or care for? -- That's compassion, reason, intelligence.
You do realize that basing public policy on a comedy film is exactly the kind of stupidity that the movie makes fun of right?You should see a movie called Idiocracy.
Here's a good example, spousal support. The courts decide spousal support based upon what the spouse is accustomed to in the marriage. That's why some spouses get 200 a month and some get 20,000. The phone and car (which were the custom in this case) were ONLY being withheld because they wished to compel her to an abortion.There are a lot of things parents can legally coerce their children to do by withholding non-essentials, but this isn't one of them.