It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Congress Bill to Defund Taxpayer Money for Abortion

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: therationalist

Thanks. I needed a good laugh.
That's the only thing your types can do...




posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Seamrog

Feeling guilty?



Well, no.


I know it went over your head, but I was simply pointing out the fact that you have absolutely no understanding of what the Immaculate Conception was.


I was going to reply how abhorrent your comment about 'better to be dead than poor' was, but it spoke for itself.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: therationalist

My twelve year old niece did not get a choice when she was raped and impregnated. That was 20 years ago and she is still a mess in her head. If you get raped, is pregnancy a problem for you?
If every law followed your logic,we wouldn't have any laws..........



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: therationalist
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Drama cannot replace logical arguments....
If you want to live as you wish because MY BoDy my Choice then Don't force anyone to pay for your choices..............
If you cannot follow such simple rules then don't call yourself an adult....


You know you only need one period to end a sentence correct? Heck even an ellipsis only has three periods.

As to your point, we, the taxpayers, ARE paying for the women who come to term's choice when they go on government assistance to take care of their new child. In fact, we end up paying MUCH more than the price of the abortion. You are right, drama cannot replace logical arguments, and the logical argument is that it is MUCH more expensive for the taxpayer to pay to assist a mother who came to term but didn't have the means to care for the child.

But hey, if we are talking about ending government assistance, let's start with corporate subsidies before we start dicking over the lower class. How does that sound?



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Seamrog




I was going to reply how abhorrent your comment about 'better to be dead than poor' was, but it spoke for itself.


WOW, I have heard that said on the forum before.

So only the wealthy should live?

I don't get this type of reasoning.

Many successful people come from humble beginnings.

This was taken right out of Margaret Sanger's playbook, but times have changed and science has changed many minds, especially young women,


edit on 103131p://bWednesday2015 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)

edit on 103131p://bWednesday2015 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Stormdancer777

Many successful people come from humble beginnings.




And many poor people are fulfilled and happy.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi
I find it so sad that the Liberals best argument for killing a child is that it would cost too much money to raise an unwanted child. And they are supposed to be the ones with heart???


I thought they were all about the poor too,

You should have a conversation with my ubber liberal friend, she bad mouth and labels people trailer trash, hillbillies, she is wealthy and intolerant of the poor, I wonder what she is thinking sometimes, her words are so opposite of what you think they should be

I just listen.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: Stormdancer777

Many successful people come from humble beginnings.




And many poor people are fulfilled and happy.


absolutely, money certainly doesn't buy happiness



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 10:56 AM
link   
The old dinosaurs are going to have to live with the fact some day, that they were wrong about abortion.

Study: Abortion rate at lowest point since 1973

www.washingtonpost.com...

www.refinery29.com...

www.nrlc.org...



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   
I am Pro Quality of Life for Living Chikdren.

ALL birth control, including Abortion is one thing the government probably should pay for.

Such backward logic from an economic position. Prevention of unwanted children doesn't even come close to the expense of subsidizing unwanted and neglected children.

Government needs to focus on bottom line economics -- NOT legislate morality.





edit on 28-1-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Good..... So if tommorow a private sector bank is at the brink of going bust due to the fault of wrong choices made by its owners and requires a hefty sum of money to prevent it from getting so, and we are told that the prevention cost is lesser than the cost to the economy if the bank is closed, will you support the idea that the owners should not be punished?????



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: therationalist

This is a trap question. YOU are the one arguing for taking away government assistance, so my opinion on that matter is irrelevant. All I said is that if you want so desperately to end government assistance programs, then start with corporate welfare first instead of focusing on the poor people living paycheck to paycheck.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee
Government doesn't grow money on trees for your information.......
No one is stopping you from practicing your version of morality, just fill your moral bills with your own money.....thanks....



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
I am Pro Quality of Life for Living Chikdren.

ALL birth control, including Abortion is one thing the government probably should pay for.

Such backward logic from an economic position. Prevention of unwanted children doesn't even come close to the expense of subsidizing unwanted and neglected children.

Government needs to focus on bottom line economics -- NOT legislate morality.





I wish there was a way I could run you out of this country.
edit on 28-1-2015 by Seamrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: therationalist

Right, money doesn't grow on trees. So let's focus on the REAL money sinks then right?

Corporate Welfare is Almost Double Social Welfare


According to a new report, the federal government spent $59 Billion on social welfare programs in 2006. While that number is high, it is nearly half of the taxpayer dollars given to assist corporations. That number, a staggering $92 Billion.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Live Action's “What is Human?” undercover investigative video probes America’s late-term abortion industry, and reveals chilling admissions from abortionists on the humanity of children in the womb. The video, which has garnered millions of views on Facebook and YouTube combined, has been shared approximately 50,000 times, and counting. “What is Human?” details the willingness of abortionists to brutally slaughter babies able to survive outside the womb, and exposes the violent and inhumane nature of late-term abortion procedures that occur daily in abortion facilities.


youtu.be...




posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   
I think I might be confused. Is this a pre-emptive strike? Does federal tax money pays for abortion? If so, where/how? Through what services?



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: Annee
I am Pro Quality of Life for Living Chikdren.

ALL birth control, including Abortion is one thing the government probably should pay for.

Such backward logic from an economic position. Prevention of unwanted children doesn't even come close to the expense of subsidizing unwanted and neglected children.

Government needs to focus on bottom line economics -- NOT legislate morality.





I wish there was a way I could run you out of this country.


For what? Being logical and expecting a government to be fiscally responsible and not legislate morality?

And being Pro Quality of Life for Living Children.

Besides that, my ancestors came here in the year 1750. I've probably been American longer then you. Unless you're indigenous.

edit on 28-1-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: therationalist

This is a trap question. YOU are the one arguing for taking away government assistance, so my opinion on that matter is irrelevant. All I said is that if you want so desperately to end government assistance programs, then start with corporate welfare first instead of focusing on the poor people living paycheck to paycheck.
It is a logical and correct question to which you have no answer.
My argument is that if anyone makes an irresponsible choice,,the person needs to be punished.....to which you don't agree with...
You are only looking at the immediate cost of the punishment but I would argue that punishing one will be a lesson for many and the society will benefit in the long term.....



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Stormdancer777

The only way to get food in our current system is to buy it. Even seeds cost money. When I was a girl in the 50's and 60's, everyone had a garden. If poor people try to raid a garden, if they can find one, they would get shot nowadays. The poverty now is much worse because you are even shut out from access to food.

The High Schoolers here have started a program on the weekends to feed the younger children. Because so many don't get food on the weekends when school is out. Where are the churches and politicians? Children having to take care of children. Let's just make more hungry babies.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join