Might I add, do it for free on our tax dollars. That really chaps my *** that I'm paying for something I am morally opposed to. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk
No these issues need to be resolved, how a child lives his/her life should not be a "side bar" issue. There is absolutely no sense in saving the child's life to have it live a life of misery with no hope and kill their soul.
that is the exact thought I've had in my head all day but did not know how to word it! but again i find myself questioning myself on this statement.....
who's going to pony up? Talk is cheap, who is willing to pay the above for a child that is not yours? I am not, nor will I.
I said they need to be addressed but they are separate issues from abortion. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk
Planned parenthood received 542 million in tax dollar support for 2012 Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk
They are not separate and part of this equation that needs to be solved. FYI we are not addressing them today.
I agree we're not addressing them but to say just kill the babies because they are too expensive is morally and ethically wrong. Planned parenthood did right at 334,000 abortions in 2011. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk
My little 18 month old niece is running around downstairs. I personally could not do the abortion thing, I just couldn't.
I am not saying to Kill them because they cost to much money, I am asking are you willing to pony up the cash? Killing them through abortion or killing their soul and giving them no chance at all, I honestly don't know what is worse.
I would love to adopt, my wife doesn't want to. But I bet she could be swayed under the right circumstances. I have a cousin that adopted 4 children and one with special needs. Parents were proven unfit. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk
Germ/Gary this is not a personal attack on you, but using economics for your argument is not going to win. Conceptually, you can bring cost into this, however, really if you want to talk about abortion as a cost saving measure you would need to consider Euthanasia for elderly people as well. I mean really in absolute terms older people cost the federal government 30% of its budget on Medicare and the other 22% or so on social security. So in absolute dollar terms 55% of hyour tax dollars goes towards old people. We would be better off letting babies live, raising them and then Euthanizing elderly at 65 or 70 before they dip into the social largesse. I doubt we would spend 55% of the federal budget raising relatively healthy babies. Plus the military could have a strong healthy pool of candidates. Sort of like a modern Sparta. Now I'm presuming since you are over 40 you would like the idea of being killed in 20 years of so as a cost saving measure and most people would feel that way about babies. Like it or not, most babies are aborted out of convenience. Not rape, health etc.
Our tax dollars pay to support plenty of children that aren't ours, for that matter adults as well. What does the legality of abortion have to do with that? Should we kill welfare children also? What about the cost of the cradle to grave welfare adults? Can we get a big enough womb scraper and vacuum for them as well? The cost argument does hold water. If that was the case we would need to be looking at whole lot more then aborting the unborn. You want to argue that the practicality of abortion has become socially palatable? That I can agree with.
