• 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!

Would you raise taxes to make abortion safe?

Atheist 2020 said:
Then they bitch when a poor woman on welfare have a large family. They say they are pro-life but are against children on welfare. It saves more money just to pay the woman to have a abortion over a life of a child until 18.
Click to expand...

Why would one have to raise taxes (your OP claim) in order to save tax money (your latest claim)? Think, before you drink - even Kool-Aid.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yes, but we are discussing a proposal of paying folks to have abortions as an alternative to paying folks more to have 'unwanted' children.
Click to expand...

Let’s see now. Taxpayers shell out $1500 for an abortion or $300,000.00 to raise an unwanted child until the age of 18.

Yeah, that’s brain racking math. :roll:
 
vegas giants said:
In that case I agree that paying a woman to have an abortion is a bad idea. What is to stop a woman from getting pregnant over and over just for the money?
Click to expand...

Nothing at all. What is to stop a woman from getting a raise in "safety net" benefits by adding more children to their 'needy' household?
 
Abortion already is safe...and also is already paid for by American taxpayers. What more do you infanticide ghouls want?
 
LowDown said:
Yes, when unmarried women have children they can't support it becomes a burden on the community. That doesn't mean we should kill the children.
Click to expand...

Then what's your solution then? It seems to me like conservatives do not care about a lot of these kids after they are born. They care about kids of poor moms when they are in the womb, but after they are born, they do not care about them. Someone like Rush Limbaugh will complain about schools providing cheap lunches for poor kids, conservative empathy ends for these kids after they are born.

The pro life movement treats kids like they are comic books, they are only worth something when they are in their original warpings.
 
Removable Mind said:
Let’s see now. Taxpayers shell out $1500 for an abortion or $300,000.00 to raise an unwanted child until the age of 18.

Yeah, that’s brain racking math. :roll:
Click to expand...

That math means that we the sheeple are paying women nearly $1M to have three children and you think that paying them $15K not to do so would be the option chosen. Obviously, only unwanted children would be aborted, thus the option remains to get paid nearly $1M for having three children and to add $5K to that for each abortion.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/abortion-adoption-supply-and-demand/68818/
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That math means that we the sheeple are paying women nearly $1M to have three children and you think that paying them $15K not to do so would be the option chosen. Obviously, only unwanted children would be aborted, thus the option remains to get paid nearly $1M for having three children and to add $5K to that for each abortion.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/abortion-adoption-supply-and-demand/68818/
Click to expand...

Children aren’t being aborted. 12 week and under embryos and early stage fetuses are being aborted.

Once an unwanted child is born, the liability that taxpayers are subject to are exponentially more.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nothing at all. What is to stop a woman from getting a raise in "safety net" benefits by adding more children to their 'needy' household?
Click to expand...

Well now since you went there. Nothing. But to not give her that "raise" hurts the child the most
 
Atheist 2020 said:
What we need is more abortions to decrease the human populations. To save the earth, we need to get the human population to be under 500 million by 2250.
Click to expand...

So are you going to drive the "Abortion Van" through the various countries to help them out?

Or shall we just wait for a plague which is natures way of solving human problems?
 
Removable Mind said:
Children aren’t being aborted. 12 week and under embryos and early stage fetuses are being aborted.

Once an unwanted child is born, the liability that taxpayers are subject to are exponentially more.
Click to expand...

But why are unwanted children not being offered for adoption? Could it possibly be that $300K reward for not doing so?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
But why are unwanted children not being offered for adoption? Could it possibly be that $300K reward for not doing so?
Click to expand...

Because they don't want to put them up for adoption. That is their choice. We get back to my original question....do you want them taken by force?
 
vegas giants said:
Well now since you went there. Nothing. But to not give her that "raise" hurts the child the most
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but would that 'unwanted' child be there if not for the financial reward offered?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Perhaps, but would that 'unwanted' child be there if not for the financial reward offered?
Click to expand...

Maybe not. But again I am not willing to hurt the child even of the mother is intentionally abusing the system
 
vegas giants said:
Because they don't want to put them up for adoption. That is their choice. We get back to my original question....do you want them taken by force?
Click to expand...

Are you asserting that these folks wanted abortions and are simply being turned away by PP? Obviously, folks are not going to abort (potential) children that they want.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Are you asserting that these folks wanted abortions and are simply being turned away by PP? Obviously, folks are not going to abort (potential) children that they want.
Click to expand...

I am not getting your point. People want to have kids they can not afford. That is a simple fact. The question is what do we do about it
 
vegas giants said:
Maybe not. But again I am not willing to hurt the child even of the mother is intentionally abusing the system
Click to expand...

They are not only abusing the system they are abusing those children. As I said before, many (most?) of these 'needy' households would be (rightly) refused the adoption of a pound puppy.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
They are not only abusing the system they are abusing those children. As I said before, many (most?) of these 'needy' households would be (rightly) refused the adoption of a pound puppy.
Click to expand...

But you will not spell out what you want to do about it? Do you want those children removed by force?
 
vegas giants said:
I am not getting your point. People want to have kids they can not afford. That is a simple fact. The question is what do we do about it
Click to expand...

My point is simple, nobody is going to abort a pregnancy that they wanted to result in a child. We are either going to give them (more) money to add children to their 'needy' household or not - there is no way that offering bounties for having abortions will ever become the law of the land.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
My point is simple, nobody is going to abort a pregnancy that they wanted to result in a child. We are either going to give them (more) money to add children to their 'needy' household or not - there is no way that offering bounties for having abortions will ever become the law of the land.
Click to expand...

Then we give them money for their needy household and not give a bounty for getting an abortion. I agree completely
 
vegas giants said:
But you will not spell out what you want to do about it? Do you want those children removed by force?
Click to expand...

That is what CPS does (or at least should do) when children are not being properly cared for. There is a wide margin between removing by force and offering a financial reward for adding (more) children. Step one - no more raises in benefits for adding children to 'needy' households. Step two - a lifetime limit of 5 years of "safety net" assistance based on having minor dependents.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is what CPS does (or at least should do) when children are not being properly cared for. There is a wide margin between removing by force and offering a financial reward for adding (more) children. Step one - no more raises in benefits for adding children to 'needy' households. Step two - a lifetime limit of 5 years of "safety net" assistance based on having minor dependents.
Click to expand...

Step one results in children going hungry. Step two doubles down on that. You want CPS to remove all these kids? The state will be caring for them with your tax money. Most will NOT be adopted. I got a hundred I can give you today just in my city. No one wants them
 
ttwtt78640 said:
But why are unwanted children not being offered for adoption? Could it possibly be that $300K reward for not doing so?
Click to expand...

There’s no reward. Much of that money goes directly toward medical care “for the child”, directly to substandard housing authorities, low nutrition foods, live in areas that has substandard education, food programs at schools, etc, etc. The parent isn’t pocketing $300K.

“Adoption” is such an old worn out argument.

Why aren’t you wondering why there are 10’s of thousands of children in CPS systems across the country who aren’t getting adopted? Many spent their entire childhood in the system.

I’ll give you a clue. People want to adopt pristine white babies, that come with a significant family history and medical backgrounds.

You do realize that most pro-choice women won’t have an abortion except out of necessity. Why? Usually because of their personal moral beliefs.
 
vegas giants said:
Step one results in children going hungry. Step two doubles down on that. You want CPS to remove all these kids? The state will be caring for them with your tax money. Most will NOT be adopted. I got a hundred I can give you today just in my city. No one wants them
Click to expand...

The state is caring for them with tax money (and additional debt). The point is that someone wants (more of) them or they would not be having (more of) them.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The state is caring for them with tax money (and additional debt). The point is that someone wants (more of) them or they would not be having (more of) them.
Click to expand...

No they don't. These kids are shuffled around from foster home after foster home. I have seem many teenagers with over 15 placements. They are better with their poor parents who get a little money from the state
 
Atheist 2020 said:
What we need is more abortions to decrease the human populations. To save the earth, we need to get the human population to be under 500 million by 2250.
Click to expand...

Maybe, although you haven't explained why you feel that way.

But, still, abortion isn't cost effective as a means of reducing population -- widespread birth control, however, is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom