Why a consumer-driven culture should allow the killing of babies

[EvilCat Breath]

The reality is that babies, especially those born to poor mothers who receive welfare cost taxpayer money.

If you favor lower taxes, you should support making it legal to kill babies, since killing them would reduce the burden they have on the taxpayer.

If you don't support killing babies, then you're secretly a socialist, since you favor perpetuating the system of taxpayer dollars being used to care for children born to low-income mothers.

Why draw the line at babies?

 

[MisterBeale]

The reality is that babies, especially those born to poor mothers who receive welfare cost taxpayer money.

If you favor lower taxes, you should support making it legal to kill babies, since killing them would reduce the burden they have on the taxpayer.

If you don't support killing babies, then you're secretly a socialist, since you favor perpetuating the system of taxpayer dollars being used to care for children born to low-income mothers.

Reductio ad absurdum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Foxfyre]

The reality is that babies, especially those born to poor mothers who receive welfare cost taxpayer money.

If you favor lower taxes, you should support making it legal to kill babies, since killing them would reduce the burden they have on the taxpayer.

If you don't support killing babies, then you're secretly a socialist, since you favor perpetuating the system of taxpayer dollars being used to care for children born to low-income mothers.

People who cannot or will not properly feed. clothe, house, educate the children they bring into the world should be allowed to have those children with them until they can and will do that. That sounds harsh but so long as we continue to reward women for having kids they cannot or will not properly support, they will continue to have them.

I am sick and tired of kids having to suffer because of irresponsible parents.

 

[yidnar]

The reality is that babies, especially those born to poor mothers who receive welfare cost taxpayer money.

If you favor lower taxes, you should support making it legal to kill babies, since killing them would reduce the burden they have on the taxpayer.

If you don't support killing babies, then you're secretly a socialist, since you favor perpetuating the system of taxpayer dollars being used to care for children born to low-income mothers.

 

[Midnight FM]

People who cannot or will not properly feed. clothe, house, educate the children they bring into the world should be allowed to have those children with them until they can and will do that. That sounds harsh but so long as we continue to reward women for having kinds they cannot or will not properly support, they will continue to have them.

I am sick and tired of kids having to suffer because of irresponsible parents.

No, they'll continue to have them one way or another, because sex is natural. They'll just starve, like they do in Africa.

So it would be more logical for you to support killing them before they're born than waiting until after they're born for them to die.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

The reality is that babies, especially those born to poor mothers who receive welfare cost taxpayer money.

If you favor lower taxes, you should support making it legal to kill babies, since killing them would reduce the burden they have on the taxpayer.

If you don't support killing babies, then you're secretly a socialist, since you favor perpetuating the system of taxpayer dollars being used to care for children born to low-income mothers.

You’re not considering all factors, one of those being poor mothers having babies they don’t want or can’t afford.

 

[Midnight FM]

You’re not considering all factors, one of those being poor mothers having babies they don’t want or can’t afford.

And? What is your point.

The only solution to that I can see is favoring mass sterilization. Because they'll have sex no matter what, whether the babies starve to death or not. If we look at starving children in central Africa, we can see that not having the resources to care for children doesn't stop people from having sex.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

And? What is your point.

The only solution to that I can see is favoring mass sterilization. Because they'll have sex no matter what, whether the babies starve to death or not. If we look at starving children in central Africa, we can see that not having the resources to care for children doesn't stop people from having sex.

I’m not suggesting a solution, I’m merely pointing out that this is a factor that should be considered before placing responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the Pro-Life crowd.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Taxes and babies fall into 2 different categories. Lower taxes are great. Abortion is vile. How about this:
Lower taxes for the people that actually pay taxes, and birth control pills for those who do not...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The reality is that babies, especially those born to poor mothers who receive welfare cost taxpayer money.

If you favor lower taxes, you should support making it legal to kill babies, since killing them would reduce the burden they have on the taxpayer.

If you don't support killing babies, then you're secretly a socialist, since you favor perpetuating the system of taxpayer dollars being used to care for children born to low-income mothers.

You should take your meds, they're for your own good

 

[Midnight FM]

Taxes and babies fall into 2 different categories. Lower taxes are great. Abortion is vile. How about this:
Lower taxes for the people that actually pay taxes, and birth control pills for those who do not...

Just support killing babies, before or after birth, and watch the taxes go down.

 

[The Irish Ram]

It's pretty simple. Babies cost money. There is no requirement for anyone to have a baby other than functioning sex organs. And many taxpayer-funded systems serve to support babies whose parents aren't able to provide for them.

Therefore, it doesn't matter whether or not abortion is or isn't killing a baby. A consumer-driven culture should allow the killing of babies, as this would:

1. Eliminate the need for taxpayer-funded services which support babies and pregnant women. It can simply be legal for them to kill the baby, and the taxpayers could keep more of their money.

2. Allow people more opportunity to spend their money on consumer products, rather than having to waste it on children, which would be of economic benefit to many companies and corporations.

So get over your moral qualms, and just make it legal to kill babies, if consumer culture is what you want to support. If you have moral qualms about the welfare of babies, then this has to extend to moral qualms about their welfare after they are born as well.

What is your morbid obsession with killing babies? Does the thought of having an innocent ripped into parts turn you on? How about 1 or 2-year-olds who eat too much. Can we kill them too?

 

[Foxfyre]

No, they'll continue to have them one way or another, because sex is natural. They'll just starve, like they do in Africa.

So it would be more logical for you to support killing them before they're born than waiting until after they're born for them to die.

I support loving children, giving them a good start nutritionally and intellectually, making sure they are warm and safe and unafraid. zif the parents won't provide that for them then they should be placed with people who will. It was that way before an increasingly 'woke' government thought it was okay to leave kids with drunken or drugged out irresponsile, neglectful irresposible people.

 

[Midnight FM]

What is your morbid obsession with killing babies? Does the thought of having an innocent ripped into parts turn you on? How about 1 or 2-year-olds who eat too much. Can we kill them too?

You're saying that this is an innocent baby that can be ripped apart? I think common sense alone dictates that it isn't:

 

[The Irish Ram]

 

[Monoculturalist]

It's pretty simple. Babies cost money. There is no requirement for anyone to have a baby other than functioning sex organs. And many taxpayer-funded systems serve to support babies whose parents aren't able to provide for them.

Therefore, it doesn't matter whether or not abortion is or isn't killing a baby. A consumer-driven culture should allow the killing of babies, as this would:

1. Eliminate the need for taxpayer-funded services which support babies and pregnant women. It can simply be legal for them to kill the baby, and the taxpayers could keep more of their money.

2. Allow people more opportunity to spend their money on consumer products, rather than having to waste it on children, which would be of economic benefit to many companies and corporations.

So get over your moral qualms, and just make it legal to kill babies, if consumer culture is what you want to support. If you have moral qualms about the welfare of babies, then this has to extend to moral qualms about their welfare after they are born as well.

I guess it's good we don't live in a purely consumer-driven culture.