Romney vows to be 'pro-life president'

Originally posted by Grimpachi
Didn’t Romney badger a young woman to give up her child for adoption because she was single when he was working with LDS? This is the guy people are pushing for. He is one slimy $@$#@!!!

i believe i read something similar to that ... got a link ??

here's the "pro-life" potential of this guy ... www.politicususa.com...

did you know that he sponsored his son's surrogate contract with a special provision (2nd contract, new provision) permitting the abortion of his grandchild ??

soooo, choice is good for him and his but no one else eh ??

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

So. You're volunteering to support all of the unwanted babies born during a potential Romney Presidency? Or are you trying to disconnect the economy from reality?

Are you saying that you find children dying in the streets less morally repugnant? Because you can't have it both ways.

~Heff

No children are dying in the street, how about a bit less drama. There is also a wonderful tool called adoption. It should be modified so that you dont have to pay a small fortune to see a child, this prevents parents who would love multiple children and could afford the rearing of them all from ever seeing more than one.

I find tying the life of human beings to the economy repugnant. Apparently you are for my license idea, since you find it acceptable to kill human beings to benefit the economy.

Originally posted by Hefficide

I am not math major but this one seems like it is going to add up badly. I mean really? Seriously? In the next election cycle I predict that the slogan will be "Thanks for watching, and please spay or neuter your poor".

THIS - before the next election cycle at least one idiot will suggest this as legislation. Dollars to donuts the level of arrogance and economic idiocy on this issue hasn't brought out the worst yet. -Mags

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Actually there are already starving children now.

In 2010, 17.2 million households, 14.5 percent of households (approximately one in seven), were food insecure, the highest number ever recorded in the United States 1 (Coleman-Jensen 2011, p. v.)

In 2010, children were food insecure at times during the year in 9.8 percent of households with children (3.9 million households.) In one percent of households with children,one or more of the children experienced the most severe food-insecure condition measured by USDA, very low food security, in which meals were irregular and food intake was below levels considered adequate by caregivers (Coleman-Jensen 2011, p. vi).

Source

Ignoring the Delphi aspects of your posting style, what you are suggesting, then, is that the poor become surrogate baby farms for the wealthy?

Again, you cannot have it both ways. Restrictions upon birth control will create a higher need for social programs and taxation.

~Heff

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Actually there are already starving children now.

In 2010, 17.2 million households, 14.5 percent of households (approximately one in seven), were food insecure, the highest number ever recorded in the United States 1 (Coleman-Jensen 2011, p. v.)

In 2010, children were food insecure at times during the year in 9.8 percent of households with children (3.9 million households.) In one percent of households with children,one or more of the children experienced the most severe food-insecure condition measured by USDA, very low food security, in which meals were irregular and food intake was below levels considered adequate by caregivers (Coleman-Jensen 2011, p. vi).

Source

Ignoring the Delphi aspects of your posting style, what you are suggesting, then, is that the poor become surrogate baby farms for the wealthy?

Again, you cannot have it both ways. Restrictions upon birth control will create a higher need for social programs and taxation.

~Heff

Food insecure is NOT death by starvation. YOU can't have it both ways. You are for killing human beings to lower the economic impact of the poor. My solution is much better than yours and will create revenue. So we stop abortion and start issuing licenses. Or is that only wrong when they have a voice to protest?