States are preparing to save babies by forcing Roe Vs Wade before the SC

[John Shaw]

I didn't say it would be a catastrophe, but I think it's hard to argue against the idea that both crime and poverty would increase in that scenario.

I haven't heard the "welfare is unconstitutional" argument made before. Usually people are more concerned with what they perceive to be unfair; freeloaders and such. I find it interesting.

When Welfare Reform took place in the 90s, it didn't do any of those things you are predicting. In fact, after it was passed, violent and gun crime decreased significantly. Which horse will run faster, the one you feed carrots to before you take the horse out, or the one with a carrot dangling in front of them?

Our greatest success of this country is that people are rewarded for their efforts. When you reward people who don't give a damn about succeeding, less people will try.

But you can't refute the fact that banning abortion would present an additional burden to society. You are anticipating that poor people who have undesired children would step up to the plate. And some would. But I'm not generous enough with my expectations of others to assume that such a change in earning power would be normal. In fact, I expect earnings to DECREASE, because many of these women are the sole parent and would need more time away from work to care for the new child.

I agree with what you are saying, but be honest with yourself here: Let's say abortion was illegal across the entire country. Do you think that women would be just as careless then as they are today? I don't think so. I think more women (and men) would take more precautions when having sex if they knew there was no way out of having a baby they really didn't want.

Again, you are counting upon the intelligence and caution of others when making this assumption. To some extent, I agree ... however ... I don't think it's wise to rely upon something so unreliable as the intelligence and caution of others.

Not to mention that birth control isn't 100%. Unless you just expect women who don't want children to be celibate. Which isn't remotely realistic.

If abortion were illegal, I don't expect everybody to be more responsible. Kids will be kids, irresponsible adults will be irresponsible adults. But I think it would greatly reduce the amount of people who have unexpected children. I think it would force some irresponsible people to be more responsible.

Regardless, I stand by my opinion that it's not my business and it's not the business of the government before a certain point. I don't see the practical purpose of leaving it to the states either; you are just telling people that if they want/need an abortion, they must go to a blue state. And cruelly punishing those who can't, for whatever reason. The backalley abortion stories didn't come about for no reason, even if you think the horror stories were exaggerated.

 

[danielpalos]

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about morals. Tax cuts for the rich and cuts to social services for the poor, is all they know.

Thank you, Daniel, for illustrating just how insightful Frédéric Bastiat really was...

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." - Frédéric Bastiat

It is pitiful (not to mention transparent) that you try to cover your desire to plunder under some faux “moral” code. There is nothing “moral” about stealing.

tax cut economics is simple income redistribution. nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics, either.

 

[night_son]

Perhaps, but your claim is that without welfare, the world would end as we know it: people starving, getting involved in more crime, murders in the street.......

None of that happened when Welfare Reform took place.

I didn't say it would be a catastrophe, but I think it's hard to argue against the idea that both crime and poverty would increase in that scenario.

I haven't heard the "welfare is unconstitutional" argument made before. Usually people are more concerned with what they perceive to be unfair; freeloaders and such. I find it interesting.

When Welfare Reform took place in the 90s, it didn't do any of those things you are predicting. In fact, after it was passed, violent and gun crime decreased significantly. Which horse will run faster, the one you feed carrots to before you take the horse out, or the one with a carrot dangling in front of them?

Our greatest success of this country is that people are rewarded for their efforts. When you reward people who don't give a damn about succeeding, less people will try.

But you can't refute the fact that banning abortion would present an additional burden to society. You are anticipating that poor people who have undesired children would step up to the plate. And some would. But I'm not generous enough with my expectations of others to assume that such a change in earning power would be normal. In fact, I expect earnings to DECREASE, because many of these women are the sole parent and would need more time away from work to care for the new child.

I agree with what you are saying, but be honest with yourself here: Let's say abortion was illegal across the entire country. Do you think that women would be just as careless then as they are today? I don't think so. I think more women (and men) would take more precautions when having sex if they knew there was no way out of having a baby they really didn't want.

Again, you are counting upon the intelligence and caution of others when making this assumption. To some extent, I agree ... however ... I don't think it's wise to rely upon something so unreliable as the intelligence and caution of others.

Not to mention that birth control isn't 100%. Unless you just expect women who don't want children to be celibate. Which isn't remotely realistic.

And you wish to decide for our citizens when not to have children, yet protest a government decision to force birth save for extreme conditions. You're arguing as well for a governmental right to decide what is best for others, in the face of freedom to deny the same--a relativistic, 'slow cooker' genocide. Reading through and understanding the theme of your posts reassures me of a majority of Americans willingness to stand against your ideology, and ensure it remains in the heads of those who share it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When Welfare Reform took place in the 90s, it didn't do any of those things you are predicting. In fact, after it was passed, violent and gun crime decreased significantly. Which horse will run faster, the one you feed carrots to before you take the horse out, or the one with a carrot dangling in front of them?

Our greatest success of this country is that people are rewarded for their efforts. When you reward people who don't give a damn about succeeding, less people will try.

But you can't refute the fact that banning abortion would present an additional burden to society. You are anticipating that poor people who have undesired children would step up to the plate. And some would. But I'm not generous enough with my expectations of others to assume that such a change in earning power would be normal. In fact, I expect earnings to DECREASE, because many of these women are the sole parent and would need more time away from work to care for the new child.

I agree with what you are saying, but be honest with yourself here: Let's say abortion was illegal across the entire country. Do you think that women would be just as careless then as they are today? I don't think so. I think more women (and men) would take more precautions when having sex if they knew there was no way out of having a baby they really didn't want.

Again, you are counting upon the intelligence and caution of others when making this assumption. To some extent, I agree ... however ... I don't think it's wise to rely upon something so unreliable as the intelligence and caution of others.

Not to mention that birth control isn't 100%. Unless you just expect women who don't want children to be celibate. Which isn't remotely realistic.

If abortion were illegal, I don't expect everybody to be more responsible. Kids will be kids, irresponsible adults will be irresponsible adults. But I think it would greatly reduce the amount of people who have unexpected children. I think it would force some irresponsible people to be more responsible.

Regardless, I stand by my opinion that it's not my business and it's not the business of the government before a certain point. I don't see the practical purpose of leaving it to the states either; you are just telling people that if they want/need an abortion, they must go to a blue state. And cruelly punishing those who can't, for whatever reason. The backalley abortion stories didn't come about for no reason, even if you think the horror stories were exaggerated.

As it is now, if red or swing state wants to make it illegal, they can't because of RvsW. Reversing it would give states the option of ruling in their own state.

 

[jc456]

So you’re not for saving babies?

Democrats don't have babies. They have little clusters of cells that are of no value to anyone. So you're wrong. I think saving babies is a good thing but the results of intercourse between members of the same sub-human species, Democrats, should be eliminated before they, too, get a chance to breed.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about morals. Tax cuts for the rich and cuts to social services for the poor, is all they know.

social services for the poor is wasted money.

no rich person got a tax cut. still waiting for that evidence. Why can't you show that?

 

[jc456]

State abortion ballots prepare for post-Roe world

Great news!

Public policy constitutes, an Public Use; eminent domain applies for any more social services that may be necessary.

Huh? In English?

It means, cease and desist or stop whining about the cost of social services.

dude, , did you read your original post?

BTW, what is the cost of social services. And explain what tax cut the rich received.

 

[danielpalos]

So you’re not for saving babies?

Democrats don't have babies. They have little clusters of cells that are of no value to anyone. So you're wrong. I think saving babies is a good thing but the results of intercourse between members of the same sub-human species, Democrats, should be eliminated before they, too, get a chance to breed.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about morals. Tax cuts for the rich and cuts to social services for the poor, is all they know.

social services for the poor is wasted money.

no rich person got a tax cut. still waiting for that evidence. Why can't you show that?

Not generous enough under Capitalism?

lol. What platform did Your guy run on. Nobody takes the disingenuous, right wing seriously.

 

[danielpalos]

State abortion ballots prepare for post-Roe world

Great news!

Public policy constitutes, an Public Use; eminent domain applies for any more social services that may be necessary.

Huh? In English?

It means, cease and desist or stop whining about the cost of social services.

dude, , did you read your original post?

BTW, what is the cost of social services. And explain what tax cut the rich received.

whatever You whine about regarding the Poor. Only lousy Christians, whine about it.

 

[jc456]

State abortion ballots prepare for post-Roe world

Great news!

Public policy constitutes, an Public Use; eminent domain applies for any more social services that may be necessary.

Huh? In English?

It means, cease and desist or stop whining about the cost of social services.

dude, , did you read your original post?

BTW, what is the cost of social services. And explain what tax cut the rich received.

whatever You whine about regarding the Poor. Only lousy Christians, whine about it.

so you got nothing as usual. what is the tax cut the rich received? why can't you post that dannyboie

 

[koshergrl]

State abortion ballots prepare for post-Roe world

Great news!

Saving babies! Good Lord that will drive the Marxists crazy.

Killing babies is a sacred rite that they will die to protect, the poor fools.

 

[koshergrl]

You sound very concerned.

I'd only be concerned if someone like you were in charge. And only if I were a republican.

If I were a democrat and you were in charge of republican fortunes, I'd be jumping for joy.

Hiking down the middle of the road? Good men doing nothing is making a choice. Whether you board one ship, the other, or remain 'safely' behind on the dock, the ship has still sailed, despite abstinence by indifference.

It is what it is. I'm not a woman. I don't intend to have children either. It really has nothing to do with me. So I'm not necessarily freaking out about it either way.

But the state getting involved with abortion (a ban, for instance) strikes me as an overreach. Restrictions? There should be some. But I don't like that much government interference in peoples' private lives. It feels gross. Disgusting. In opposition to what America supposedly cherishes: our beloved freedom. As much as abortion is generally a sad, undesirable thing, it's also necessary, and most importantly, NOT MY GODDAMNED BUSINESS ...

I can't stress that last part enough. Want to be pro-life? Don't get an abortion. Stop telling other people what to do. Particularly since the pro-life movement is very much religiously motivated (not pragmatic, intrusive and theocratic). That's my sincere opinion on the matter.

It's not solely a religious issue. It's a constitutional matter of peole being killed without due process. Religion has little to do with it. If religion is what is needed to motivate someone to make the morally just, and legally correct decision on the matter; I won't mind. Just so long as they arrive where they should.

Depends on how you define a "person". I find it difficult to define a person as a very tiny organism that lacks consciousness and has never even held consciousness... From what I've read, consciousness forms around 20 weeks or so. So before that, it can hardly be called the killing of a person. After? Maybe so.

So consciousness and size are required to be a person?

That's interesting.

Also not true..but meh. What else is new.

 

[danielpalos]

Public policy constitutes, an Public Use; eminent domain applies for any more social services that may be necessary.

Huh? In English?

It means, cease and desist or stop whining about the cost of social services.

dude, , did you read your original post?

BTW, what is the cost of social services. And explain what tax cut the rich received.

whatever You whine about regarding the Poor. Only lousy Christians, whine about it.

so you got nothing as usual. what is the tax cut the rich received? why can't you post that dannyboie

Only lousy Christians are Disingenuous.

 

[jc456]

Huh? In English?

It means, cease and desist or stop whining about the cost of social services.

dude, , did you read your original post?

BTW, what is the cost of social services. And explain what tax cut the rich received.

whatever You whine about regarding the Poor. Only lousy Christians, whine about it.

so you got nothing as usual. what is the tax cut the rich received? why can't you post that dannyboie

Only lousy Christians are Disingenuous.

so you still got nothing as usual. what is the tax cut the rich received? why can't you post that dannyboie

 

[danielpalos]

It means, cease and desist or stop whining about the cost of social services.

dude, , did you read your original post?

BTW, what is the cost of social services. And explain what tax cut the rich received.

whatever You whine about regarding the Poor. Only lousy Christians, whine about it.

so you got nothing as usual. what is the tax cut the rich received? why can't you post that dannyboie

Only lousy Christians are Disingenuous.

so you still got nothing as usual. what is the tax cut the rich received? why can't you post that dannyboie

look it up, yourself. i am not the one being, disingenuous. it takes morals to bear true witness.

 

[koshergrl]

dude, , did you read your original post?

BTW, what is the cost of social services. And explain what tax cut the rich received.

whatever You whine about regarding the Poor. Only lousy Christians, whine about it.

so you got nothing as usual. what is the tax cut the rich received? why can't you post that dannyboie

Only lousy Christians are Disingenuous.

so you still got nothing as usual. what is the tax cut the rich received? why can't you post that dannyboie

look it up, yourself. i am not the one being, disingenuous. it takes morals to bear true witness.

Our government needs to stop subsidizing imbeciles.

 

[jc456]

dude, , did you read your original post?

BTW, what is the cost of social services. And explain what tax cut the rich received.

whatever You whine about regarding the Poor. Only lousy Christians, whine about it.

so you got nothing as usual. what is the tax cut the rich received? why can't you post that dannyboie

Only lousy Christians are Disingenuous.

so you still got nothing as usual. what is the tax cut the rich received? why can't you post that dannyboie

look it up, yourself. i am not the one being, disingenuous. it takes morals to bear true witness.

so you are just spewing lies. thanks for admitting it.

 

[danielpalos]

whatever You whine about regarding the Poor. Only lousy Christians, whine about it.

so you got nothing as usual. what is the tax cut the rich received? why can't you post that dannyboie

Only lousy Christians are Disingenuous.

so you still got nothing as usual. what is the tax cut the rich received? why can't you post that dannyboie

look it up, yourself. i am not the one being, disingenuous. it takes morals to bear true witness.

Our government needs to stop subsidizing imbeciles.

Not sure what you mean. Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. Why does the right wing complain about that, and not about providing for the general warfare or the common offense.

 

[jc456]

so you got nothing as usual. what is the tax cut the rich received? why can't you post that dannyboie

Only lousy Christians are Disingenuous.

so you still got nothing as usual. what is the tax cut the rich received? why can't you post that dannyboie

look it up, yourself. i am not the one being, disingenuous. it takes morals to bear true witness.

Our government needs to stop subsidizing imbeciles.

Not sure what you mean. Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. Why does the right wing complain about that, and not about providing for the general warfare or the common offense.

link. back one of your posts with something other than lies.

 

[danielpalos]

whatever You whine about regarding the Poor. Only lousy Christians, whine about it.

so you got nothing as usual. what is the tax cut the rich received? why can't you post that dannyboie

Only lousy Christians are Disingenuous.

so you still got nothing as usual. what is the tax cut the rich received? why can't you post that dannyboie

look it up, yourself. i am not the one being, disingenuous. it takes morals to bear true witness.

so you are just spewing lies. thanks for admitting it.

i am not "spewing lies", You are merely being Disingenuous. How, less ethical and less moral.

 

[danielpalos]

Only lousy Christians are Disingenuous.

so you still got nothing as usual. what is the tax cut the rich received? why can't you post that dannyboie

look it up, yourself. i am not the one being, disingenuous. it takes morals to bear true witness.

Our government needs to stop subsidizing imbeciles.

Not sure what you mean. Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. Why does the right wing complain about that, and not about providing for the general warfare or the common offense.

link.

Our Constitution. Why don't you know it, "by heart", right winger? Patriotism IS, a social moral for free.