• 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?

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...

That's unfortunately not true. The children who are in foster care are usually there because no one wanted them.

Young parents that aren't prepared to raise children end up neglecting or abusing them and then the state has to step in.

What those young fertile people want is just to have sex -- they don't want to deal with the children that result, however.
 
HowardBThiname said:
That's unfortunately not true. The children who are in foster care are usually there because no one wanted them.

Young parents that aren't prepared to raise children end up neglecting or abusing them and then the state has to step in.

What those young fertile people want is just to have sex -- they don't want to deal with the children that result, however.
Click to expand...

Are we to assume that these acts of child neglect and child abuse are being prosecuted?
 
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...

Best I can do is 5 billion by 2180.
 
HowardBThiname said:
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.
Click to expand...

Maybe NAZI Germany had a good idea after all with overpopulation. Trump made it rational to place people in dog cages together, it is not that far away from ovens. Summer of 2019 is not that far off. And the conservatives would support oven tactics to take care of illegals. I'm thinking for the gun nuts, for $10,000 you can get a human hunting permit to shot and kill illegals.
 
chuckiechan said:
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?
Click to expand...

Conservatives loves nuclear weapons, and, with a Republican Congress they can use it on a blue state like California.
 
Atheist 2020 said:
Would you raise taxes to make abortion safe?

It is time to have socialized medicine and make the federal government run abortion providers to get around state rules. It is also time to pay women to have abortions. I'm looking at $5,000 per-abortion. The conservatives make the argument that poor women have children to get government aid, a $5,000 cash deal would lower poor women having children.
Click to expand...

Why pay for abortions instead of just paying a cash deal for a tubal? Hell why not be equal opportunity and pay for getting vasectomies too.
 
Winchester said:
Why pay for abortions instead of just paying a cash deal for a tubal? Hell why not be equal opportunity and pay for getting vasectomies too.
Click to expand...

I support convicted felons getting vasectomies. Paying a male $5,000 to get a vasectomies.
 
LowDown said:
Many people see no difference between abortion and the murder of little babies.
Click to expand...

But the rest of us are not responsible for that self-indulgent delusion. Facts are facts.
 
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...

Er, married or other couples do the same thing.
 
LowDown said:
Married couples seldom live below the poverty line. Most children raised in poverty live in single mother households.
Click to expand...

That's not the argument the people supporting a higher minimum wage make.

And couples that have kids dont have to be married but can still be a family unit.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nope, but I don't want any pregnancy to be a source of cash to a 'parent' that does not want children (obviously, folks do not wish to abort children that they want). Many of these folks would be (correctly) denied permission to adopt a pound puppy yet "the system" offers to give them a raise for adding (more) children to their 'needy' household. To combat that insanity, the OP proposes actually paying folks for each abortion.
Click to expand...

I can just see the drug addicts lining up every month to get their wombs vacuumed out for $5000. I think that's a living wage in some places.

Not only that, pimps would force their hookers to deliberately get pregnant and they'd cash in on it too.

The lovely humanitarian scenarios are endless! :roll:
 
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...

Not always the best solution, esp if it's not a perfect white infant.

THere are over 100,000 kids awaiting adoption in the US right now. (And I dont mean in foster care, I mean available for adoption)
 
ttwtt78640 said:
My point is simple, nobody is going to abort a pregnancy that they wanted to result in a child.
.
Click to expand...

So my parents have been foster parents and I grew up in a church close friends with a family that took in foster kids.

One thing no one has mentioned: once you are pregnant, *if you do nothing* the result is a kid. Many of these kids are the result of just doing nothing. Betting on a miscarriage. This is often the case for drug addicts and lower-end hookers, runaways, homeless, etc.

And then these kids are not only born, they are born with physical and mental defects. I know...my mother's a nurse and took in special needs infants. I wont go into the saddest, unadoptable babies and tots that never ever escape the system.

My adopted sisters (twins) both have/had physical problems (2 holes in her heart) and one inherited her mother's mental illness. the other is learning disabled. We all know their other 2 sisters and brother and 2 of the 3 have more birth defects than they do. The other inherited the mother's mental illness as well.

I guess my point is...you cant assume that someone remains pregnant because 'they want a kid.' Some of these women are so strung out or desperate that they dont do anything. They just 'see what happens.' And obviously, most of these kids end up not being adopted because they often have these birth defects.
 
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...

The mother has a choice. Either let them be born or kill them, so says the party against the death penalty!
 
HowardBThiname said:
I have no clue.
Click to expand...

From personal experience, I suspect not except for the most extreme of cases. The general attitude of child/adult protective services seems to be to 'stop the bleeding', meaning that once the neglect, abuse and/or exploitation has ceased (children/adult removed and placed under proper care/guardianship) the emergency situation has been sufficiently addressed. Any action by law enforcement, after that point, is left entirely up to the LEOs. The LEO's are (or at least should be) given the results of the civil agency investigation and may or may not decide to prepare (by re-investigating the case) and bring a criminal case.
 
Atheist 2020 said:
Would you raise taxes to make abortion safe?
Click to expand...
Abortion already is safe. If you can't afford one, there are several programs out there to help you.
 
Atheist 2020 said:
First off, I am a male!
Click to expand...
Is it ok if I tease you for being Canadian? Good-naturedly, of course. You can tease me for being an American.

Lots of men pay for their wife/girlfriend to have an abortion. The 'you' was figurative, sorry :)
 
Wayne Jr said:
Is it ok if I tease you for being Canadian? Good-naturedly, of course. You can tease me for being an American.

Lots of men pay for their wife/girlfriend to have an abortion. The 'you' was figurative, sorry :)
Click to expand...

My wife is Canadian, my three daughters are American and Canadian and they were all born in Canada. Sadly, I am a American but will retire in Canada and have my grave there.
 
Atheist 2020 said:
My wife is Canadian, my three daughters are American and Canadian and they were all born in Canada. Sadly, I am a American but will retire in Canada and have my grave there.
Click to expand...
Random question that has nothing to do with anything: did you have to get married in both countries or does each honor the license of the other?
 
Lursa said:
But the rest of us are not responsible for that self-indulgent delusion. Facts are facts.
Click to expand...

They would say the same to you.

IMHO these issues should be settled democratically. I would accept a majority vote. I'm not really happy with the black robed priests on the SCOTUS deciding it. We can see by the Kavenaugh dumpster fire where that leads us.
 
LowDown said:
They would say the same to you.

IMHO these issues should be settled democratically. I would accept a majority vote. I'm not really happy with the black robed priests on the SCOTUS deciding it. We can see by the Kavenaugh dumpster fire where that leads us.
Click to expand...

Well no...facts dont change based on someone's position or beliefs. Factually it's not murder and there are no 'babies' involved except in people's imaginations.

But now you are recommending that the general public have the right to vote on women's Constitutional rights. How is that reasonable? It's not legal, that's for sure and we have protections in place to prevent it.

Tyranny of the majority (or tyranny of the masses) refers to an inherent weakness of majority rule in which the majority of an electorate can and does place its own interests above, and at the expense of, those in the minority. This results in oppression of minority groups comparable to that of a tyrant or despot, argued John Stuart Mill in his famous 1859 book On Liberty.[1]

Potentially, through tyranny of the majority, a disliked or unfavored ethnic, religious, political, social, or racial group may be deliberately targeted for oppression by the majority element acting through the democratic process

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom