• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republicans prove they are not pro life...

C

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,657
Reaction score
8,454
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Thank you Republicans for dropping the charade with your tax bill. We can see your true colors now. Abolishing the adoption tax credit? Really? The National Review said it best...

What’s more, the credit is one of the government’s most important pro-life policies. It’s a declaration that the pro-life ethic doesn’t stop (as the Left is so fond of arguing) at birth, but also extends into making certain that every child is a wanted child. It’s a way for the federal government to be an agent of relief and assistance in a process that’s too long, too difficult, and too expensive.
Click to expand...

Adoption Tax Credit: A Pro-Life Policy Republicans Must Save | National Review

But what is important here is you could build one air craft carrier with the revenue that eliminating this credit will generate for the Feds in 10 years. Tens of thousands of vulnerable children may now be priced out of a forever family because Republicans think the estate tax is such an unethical financial burden on families worth nearly $6 million. Priorities, right?
 
CriticalThought said:
Thank you Republicans for dropping the charade with your tax bill. We can see your true colors now. Abolishing the adoption tax credit? Really? The National Review said it best...



Adoption Tax Credit: A Pro-Life Policy Republicans Must Save | National Review

But what is important here is you could build one air craft carrier with the revenue that eliminating this credit will generate for the Feds in 10 years. Tens of thousands of vulnerable children may now be priced out of a forever family because Republicans think the estate tax is such an unethical financial burden on families worth nearly $6 million. Priorities, right?
Click to expand...

Are you are arguing for tax credits?

I prefer limited government spending and a basic tax rate, period.

So since I support a woman's right to choose, and National Review posits that elimination of this tax credit might undermine the Pro-Life support from some hardline opponents?

Then I say great!
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
You are arguing for tax credits?

I prefer limited government spending and a basic tax rate, period.

So since I support a woman's right to choose, and National Review posits that elimination of this tax credit might undermine the Pro-Life support from some hardline opponents?

Then I say great!
Click to expand...

This is a tax credit that has enjoyed bipartisan support and made considerable sense. Children who are raised in foster care are vastly more likely to end up in prison and cost society hundreds of thousands per child. By contrast a forever family increases their likelihood of becoming a contributer to society. So you value a "basic tax rate" over a common sense policy that is both fiscally and morally common sense. But yeah, I guess simpler is better for some people who don't give a **** about vulnerable kids in their country.
 
CriticalThought said:
This is a tax credit that has enjoyed bipartisan support and made considerable sense. Children who are raised in foster care are vastly more likely to end up in prison and cost society hundreds of thousands per child. By contrast a forever family increases their likelihood of becoming a contributer to society. So you value a "basic tax rate" over a common sense policy that is both fiscally and morally common sense. But yeah, I guess simpler is better for some people who don't give a **** about vulnerable kids in their country.
Click to expand...

If the "forever families" can't afford to adopt a child without special tax breaks, then IMO they should not be adopting at all.

If "excess" children are being born to people who refuse the option to abort knowing they can't or won't raise the child, then perhaps society should begin to emphasize both birth control, and morning after pills to prevent these people from making that mistake?

Meanwhile, arguing that society should avoid the abortion option based on a emotional appeal of "what about the children!" is, IMO detrimental to both society and those "unwanted potential" children.
 
Captain Adverse said:
If the "forever families" can't afford to adopt a child without special tax breaks, then IMO they should not be adopting at all.
Click to expand...

You are clueless. You are basically arguing that rather than increasing the potential pool of families that could adopt by allowing them to keep more of their taxable earnings, we should let kids rot in a more expensive and ineffective system. You lost this debate right there. That is both fiscally irresponsible and morally repugnant.
 
CriticalThought said:
You are clueless. You are basically arguing that rather than increasing the potential pool of families that could adopt by allowing them to keep more of their taxable earnings, we should let kids rot in a more expensive and ineffective system. You lost this debate right there. That is both fiscally irresponsible and morally repugnant.
Click to expand...

Stop asserting what I am "talking about."

I support teaching kids "safe sex," as opposed to (IMO) foolish "abstinence until marriage" in the forlorn hope their normal sexual impulses will be controlled by fear and/or prayer.

I also support abortion as a woman's right, and I support all birth control methods, including the morning after pill to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

What I do not support is emotional appeals via labeling developing zygotes "human life" as if this is the equivalent of "human being."

So that by this method you guilt women into bringing unwanted children into this world, either to be placed in orphanages, or farmed out to "forever families" who can't afford an extra child unless the rest of society gives them a special tax break.

In this regard you may keep your personal "morals" to yourself, while I'll keep to mine.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
Thank you Republicans for dropping the charade with your tax bill. We can see your true colors now. Abolishing the adoption tax credit? Really? The National Review said it best...



Adoption Tax Credit: A Pro-Life Policy Republicans Must Save | National Review

But what is important here is you could build one air craft carrier with the revenue that eliminating this credit will generate for the Feds in 10 years. Tens of thousands of vulnerable children may now be priced out of a forever family because Republicans think the estate tax is such an unethical financial burden on families worth nearly $6 million. Priorities, right?
Click to expand...

Maybe it would be better to reduce the costs of adoption in stead. I really don't see why others should be forced to pay for your adoption. If a charity or private group want to help that is fine.
 
CriticalThought said:
This is a tax credit that has enjoyed bipartisan support and made considerable sense. Children who are raised in foster care are vastly more likely to end up in prison and cost society hundreds of thousands per child. By contrast a forever family increases their likelihood of becoming a contributer to society. So you value a "basic tax rate" over a common sense policy that is both fiscally and morally common sense. But yeah, I guess simpler is better for some people who don't give a **** about vulnerable kids in their country.
Click to expand...

So reduce the red tape and costs of adoption. Make the process less expensive.
 
CriticalThought said:
You are clueless. You are basically arguing that rather than increasing the potential pool of families that could adopt by allowing them to keep more of their taxable earnings, we should let kids rot in a more expensive and ineffective system. You lost this debate right there. That is both fiscally irresponsible and morally repugnant.
Click to expand...

It's like alot of things. The upfront costs are not even close to the overall costs of care and maintenance.

If you need a tax break to adopt a kid, you cant afford a kid.

The "appeal to emotion" you are playing is obvious and no better than when the pro-lifers wail "what about the 'innocent babies'?!"
 
CriticalThought said:
This is a tax credit that has enjoyed bipartisan support and made considerable sense. Children who are raised in foster care are vastly more likely to end up in prison and cost society hundreds of thousands per child. By contrast a forever family increases their likelihood of becoming a contributer to society. So you value a "basic tax rate" over a common sense policy that is both fiscally and morally common sense. But yeah, I guess simpler is better for some people who don't give a **** about vulnerable kids in their country.
Click to expand...

That article is a little skewed because the high adoption cost is for newborns, which are pretty hard to come by. Adopting an older child is considered a "special needs" adoption and there is funding to help ease those adoption costs.

Yes, the cost of adopting newborns is expensive -- it costs about the same as buying a mid-level vehicle in today's car market.

Where the article is completely bogus is in its interference that if this adoption tax credit goes away, kids will still be in foster homes. That's wrong. As I said, adoptions of kids in the foster system are funded by state programs to a large extent. Just call your state's foster program and ask if you don't believe me.

That leaves the adoption tax credit benefiting only a small number of adoptions, private adoptions of newborns. Those newborns, because of abortion, are in high demand and if one family can't financially afford to adopt a newborn, there's another family out there who will quickly step up.

That's the author's big mistake. The ending of the tax credit will have no effect on abortion or on kids in the foster system being adopted.

This is a good example of how easy it is to skew an entire issue if folks don't know what's really happening.
 
Lursa said:
It's like alot of things. The upfront costs are not even close to the overall costs of care and maintenance.

If you need a tax break to adopt a kid, you cant afford a kid.

The "appeal to emotion" you are playing is obvious and no better than when the pro-lifers wail "what about the 'innocent babies'?!"
Click to expand...


You nailed it!
 
CriticalThought said:
You are clueless. You are basically arguing that rather than increasing the potential pool of families that could adopt by allowing them to keep more of their taxable earnings, we should let kids rot in a more expensive and ineffective system. You lost this debate right there. That is both fiscally irresponsible and morally repugnant.
Click to expand...


As if people say 'hmm..look, you get a tax credit for adopting a child. Hey hon, lets do it!' I certainly don't want children being adopted by people in it for the tax break.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Stop asserting what I am "talking about."

I support teaching kids "safe sex," as opposed to (IMO) foolish "abstinence until marriage" in the forlorn hope their normal sexual impulses will be controlled by fear and/or prayer.

I also support abortion as a woman's right, and I support all birth control methods, including the morning after pill to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

What I do not support is emotional appeals via labeling developing zygotes "human life" as if this is the equivalent of "human being."

So that by this method you guilt women into bringing unwanted children into this world, either to be placed in orphanages, or farmed out to "forever families" who can't afford an extra child unless the rest of society gives them a special tax break.

In this regard you may keep your personal "morals" to yourself, while I'll keep to mine.
Click to expand...

:applaud Well said.
 
HowardBThiname said:
That article is a little skewed because the high adoption cost is for newborns, which are pretty hard to come by. Adopting an older child is considered a "special needs" adoption and there is funding to help ease those adoption costs.

Yes, the cost of adopting newborns is expensive -- it costs about the same as buying a mid-level vehicle in today's car market.

Where the article is completely bogus is in its interference that if this adoption tax credit goes away, kids will still be in foster homes. That's wrong. As I said, adoptions of kids in the foster system are funded by state programs to a large extent. Just call your state's foster program and ask if you don't believe me.

That leaves the adoption tax credit benefiting only a small number of adoptions, private adoptions of newborns. Those newborns, because of abortion, are in high demand and if one family can't financially afford to adopt a newborn, there's another family out there who will quickly step up.

That's the author's big mistake. The ending of the tax credit will have no effect on abortion or on kids in the foster system being adopted.

This is a good example of how easy it is to skew an entire issue if folks don't know what's really happening.
Click to expand...

Though I haven't looked into this very closely, your description sounds solid enough and corresponds to my intuition.
 
Lursa said:
It's like alot of things. The upfront costs are not even close to the overall costs of care and maintenance.

If you need a tax break to adopt a kid, you cant afford a kid.

The "appeal to emotion" you are playing is obvious and no better than when the pro-lifers wail "what about the 'innocent babies'?!"
Click to expand...

...and the battle cry of "Woman's right to choose!", which is also quite emotionally applied in debate. ;)
 
CriticalThought said:
You are clueless. You are basically arguing that rather than increasing the potential pool of families that could adopt by allowing them to keep more of their taxable earnings, we should let kids rot in a more expensive and ineffective system. You lost this debate right there. That is both fiscally irresponsible and morally repugnant.
Click to expand...

You're perpetuating a massive untruth here -- just as is the author of the OP article.

Adopting kids from foster care doesn't cost a lot -- it actually pays. That tax credit only applies to adoptions of newborns, not foster kids. It doesn't cost much, if anything, to adopt older foster kids. You're whining about a tax credit that goes mostly to wealth white families who insist on having newborns.

Talk about a big old nothingburger.

ADOPTING A WAITING CHILD

While families often pay extremely high fees to adopt infants, whether independently or through a private agency, adopting a waiting child is one way to reduce the cost of adoption dramatically. If a family plans to adopt a U.S. child who is in foster care through a public agency, the public agency in the family's county or state will often complete the homestudy at no cost. Adoptive parent preparation classes may be provided as part of the homestudy process. If the waiting child resides in the same county or state as the family, the costs of post-placement supervision may also be covered by the family's agency.

FOSTER ADOPTION

Like the adoption of any other waiting child, foster adoption will involve few, if any, costs to the family. If a family is comfortable with the levels of risk and openness involved with a child who first enters the home as a foster child, this may be a way to adopt.

As a foster parent, you will receive a check each month to cover the cost of caring for the child, and the child will also receive medical assistance. If you adopt that child, you will continue to receive financial and medical assistance.
Click to expand...

Financing an Adoption | National Adoption Center
 
joG said:
...and the battle cry of "Woman's right to choose!", which is also quite emotionally applied in debate. ;)
Click to expand...

The position is based on law, not emotion.

It is disturbing however, when one realizes women need those laws because others would demand that they give birth against their will...I dont think it's odd that that would cause people of good conscience to be upset.
 
joG said:
So reduce the red tape and costs of adoption. Make the process less expensive.
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
It's like alot of things. The upfront costs are not even close to the overall costs of care and maintenance.

If you need a tax break to adopt a kid, you cant afford a kid.
Click to expand...
.....
 
joG said:
...and the battle cry of "Woman's right to choose!", which is also quite emotionally applied in debate. ;)
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
The position is based on law, not emotion.

It is disturbing however, when one realizes women need those laws because others would demand that they give birth against their will...I dont think it's odd that that would cause people of good conscience to be upset.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Roe is about the right to privacy regarding procreation.

Women should be not forced by law to continue a unwanted or medically unhealthy ( fetal or maternal) pregnancy before viability.

Nor should she be forced to have an abortion even if the fetus is so malformed that if it survives birth it would cost the taxpayers millions of dollars in medical bills.

Each woman should be able to decide whether or not she wishes to try to continue her pregnancy to birth.
 
joG said:
...and the battle cry of "Woman's right to choose!", which is also quite emotionally applied in debate. ;)
Click to expand...

So then when applied based on principles and not 'emotion,' do you support a woman's right to choose?
 
Lursa said:
It's like alot of things. The upfront costs are not even close to the overall costs of care and maintenance.

If you need a tax break to adopt a kid, you cant afford a kid.

The "appeal to emotion" you are playing is obvious and no better than when the pro-lifers wail "what about the 'innocent babies'?!"
Click to expand...

It is sad to see people make broad generalizations about situations with real human costs.
 
joG said:
So reduce the red tape and costs of adoption. Make the process less expensive.
Click to expand...

How? If it were easy, then I think people would have done something about it.
 
HowardBThiname said:
That article is a little skewed because the high adoption cost is for newborns, which are pretty hard to come by. Adopting an older child is considered a "special needs" adoption and there is funding to help ease those adoption costs.

Yes, the cost of adopting newborns is expensive -- it costs about the same as buying a mid-level vehicle in today's car market.

Where the article is completely bogus is in its interference that if this adoption tax credit goes away, kids will still be in foster homes. That's wrong. As I said, adoptions of kids in the foster system are funded by state programs to a large extent. Just call your state's foster program and ask if you don't believe me.

That leaves the adoption tax credit benefiting only a small number of adoptions, private adoptions of newborns. Those newborns, because of abortion, are in high demand and if one family can't financially afford to adopt a newborn, there's another family out there who will quickly step up.

That's the author's big mistake. The ending of the tax credit will have no effect on abortion or on kids in the foster system being adopted.

This is a good example of how easy it is to skew an entire issue if folks don't know what's really happening.
Click to expand...

I have been going through the adoption process for over a year. I think I have a good idea. I think you are the one who is overestimating said "funding".
 
HowardBThiname said:
That article is a little skewed because the high adoption cost is for newborns, which are pretty hard to come by. Adopting an older child is considered a "special needs" adoption and there is funding to help ease those adoption costs.

Yes, the cost of adopting newborns is expensive -- it costs about the same as buying a mid-level vehicle in today's car market.

Where the article is completely bogus is in its interference that if this adoption tax credit goes away, kids will still be in foster homes. That's wrong. As I said, adoptions of kids in the foster system are funded by state programs to a large extent. Just call your state's foster program and ask if you don't believe me.

That leaves the adoption tax credit benefiting only a small number of adoptions, private adoptions of newborns. Those newborns, because of abortion, are in high demand and if one family can't financially afford to adopt a newborn, there's another family out there who will quickly step up.

That's the author's big mistake. The ending of the tax credit will have no effect on abortion or on kids in the foster system being adopted.

This is a good example of how easy it is to skew an entire issue if folks don't know what's really happening.
Click to expand...

So...when a special needs child is adopted and they act out and end up on probation or a residential treatment program, that is super cheap?
 
holbritter said:
As if people say 'hmm..look, you get a tax credit for adopting a child. Hey hon, lets do it!' I certainly don't want children being adopted by people in it for the tax break.
Click to expand...

Are you being facetious or do you really think that is the argument I am making?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom