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.

 

Bill Would Reduce Welfare Benefits For Women Who Cannot Prove They Were Raped

page: 6
21
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   
If you're poor, receiving support from the taxpayers, you shouldn't have any more children.

It's really quite simple. If you can't afford kids, don't have them. It is not a right to expect other people to pay to raise your children.

I think that welfare should only last for about 6 months.




posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by Ancient Champion
reply to post by 3chainz
 


I like it how you throw a chart in there and put some numbers together and make everyone believe that everyone on welfare is old people and not young people with alot of kids who just don't want to work.


Can you come up with a chart proving that all welfare recipients are young people with a lot of kids who don't want to work?


Welfare recipients are PREDOMINANTLY old people. That's why you see this sort of nuttery so often.









You see...when somebody is against "welfare" what they really mean is that they are against "welfare for somebody else".

What about all those lazy, no good farmers that are QUITE LITERALLY getting paid NOT to grow food? It's only been in the last year or two that pulling even SOME farm subsidies has even been DISCUSSED...but I have NEVER heard of people vilifying farmers as being a bunch of "lazy freeloaders" or inherently immoral for being welfare queens. Why is that? Why is it only welfare that is likely to go to women or minorities that is so "evil"? Let's face it...who owns and runs farms? Mostly white anglo-saxon males. Yes...I know that statistically speaking there must be at least SOME black ranch owners and somewhere there is a single mother who is every bit the farmer of her male counterparts...but it's the exception not the norm.

For that matter...why are the SICK PEOPLE who need medical care so often labeled "lazy"...but the doctor, hospital, and pharmaceutical company who are responsible for charging you $28 for a box of Kleenex at the hospital are still "good americans". Who is of the lower moral character? The guy who needs help saving his wife or child's life or the lowlife scum who do not voluntarily reduce their rates or simply provide care at cost for those in need? Back in our proverbial "good old days" the small town Doctor WOULND'T HAVE DREAMED of making a family choose between bankruptcy and homelessness or letting their child die. Why do these guys get a pass and the poor SOB who just wants his family to cared for the "bad guy"? One is doing it for survival. The other is doing it so they can drive $120,000 car. By this same rule of logic the Founding Fathers were the lazy one's because they didn't want to work harder for the benefit of the royal classes and the detriment of pretty much everyone else.

...and don't even get me started on the welfare given to oil companies and defense contractors. Not only to they avoid being labeled as "lazy" like farmers do...we actually elevate them to the status of practically being "heros" for building tanks the military doesn't want, fighter jets that render the pilot unconscious, and spy blimps which the military says has no practical application and serves only to be a very large and slow moving target in any scenario where it might actually be utilized.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny

And now PA will deny benefits of these children who a) didn't ask to be born; and b) were conceived under the most violent circumstances possible.

But that's the GOP for ya. They'll fight tooth and nail to keep you from getting an abortion, but the minute the child is born, they don't give a damn what happens to it.


I think you skipped the part where I said that the best solution is to just take their word for it and work around that. It's an ugly and painful situation to be in without somebody scrutinizing your claims. Benefit of the doubt should apply here.

This is why any positive aspects a bill like this may or may not bring is outweighed (by far) by the damage it would cause.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by 3chainz

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by 3chainz
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


What is your point?


My point was condoms are a helluva lot better contraceptive method than none at all.


And people still get pregnant due to condom failure, so you have no real point.


I guess you're right. The only fool-proof, 100% method available is abstinence.


Lots of abstinent women get raped.

There are no fool-proof methods aside from surgically altering your reproductive system.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by 3chainz


The whole point is that the GOP has no real reason to do this. The amount given per additional children is NOT MUCH. All non-rape babies are being punished, as well with the real rape babies with ashamed mothers.



If the baby is the result of a crime then the crime and criminal (if known) must be reported to the appropriate law enforcement office. If you want the extra money for a baby that is born from rape, show that the rape was properly reported. It's not PROOF. It's a case number. If they don't have the paperwork then they can request another copy. If they don't report the crime then that is their decision.

You must report the crime to receive the benefit. It's not that complicated.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 



There are no fool-proof methods aside from surgically altering your reproductive system.


See, we had the answer all along.
100% effective.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
If you're poor, receiving support from the taxpayers, you shouldn't have any more children.

It's really quite simple. If you can't afford kids, don't have them. It is not a right to expect other people to pay to raise your children.

I think that welfare should only last for about 6 months.


Me too.

Especially Social Security, Medicare, and VA benefits for anyone over age 55. There will be a lot less Baby Boomers interfering in the elections that way in short order.

If you need to go into a nursing home and your kids hate you and refuse to take you in or pay for your care... that's your own fault. MY TAXES shouldn't go up just because YOU are no longer profitable for me to keep around, right? It's the same logic...isn't it? I mean, even if Bernie Madoff robbed you of your retirement savings or you were a victim of the Enron debacle long after you retired and had no conceivable way to replace that money you lost...you are on your own buddy. Hey...if people had been better parents to their kids when they were young, they wouldn't have to worry about being left to die in the streets. I'm sure you won't feel like you are a nuisance as you age either when your kids and grandkids can't go on vacation because they have to spoon-feed gramps his baby food and change his diapers again. You'll be thrilled to see the resentment that slowly builds up in their eyes as your condition deteriorates. Or being shuffled around between three of your kids every few months depending on who drew the short straw. That's the way it was when George Washington was president.

Of course, there will be a whole lot of GenX and younger who would just mom and pops to get lost. It might seem a bit cold and callous...but hey...that's the way you raised them. Right? It's all about the individual and the hell with everyone and everybody else. You better hope you can really bring something to the table when you're old and useless...because otherwise you'll just be a constant drain on resources and everyone knows such people are best left to fend for themselves. I mean...you could care less what happens to the newborn's who are born into poverty through no fault of their own...so why would or should anyone care about you once you aren't useful anymore? At least the newborn infant still has POTENTIAL in front of them. Of what benefit is having an arthritic octogenarian around to make the house smell like old people? Especially once the kids get to middle school and don't need babysitters anymore. At that point...you'll really be just kind of a net loss for your kids

And don't even get me started on what happens to you when The Big One hits California. Hey...I live in Wisconsin. I was smart enough not put my house either on a fault line OR in an area that will experience an immediate influx of 10 million refugees. It's not my fault you were so irresponsible to live in an area that everyone has known is overdue for a landscape changing event. In that case you AND your kids will be on your own. Let's hope Grams and Gramps don't have any problem walking over the Sierra Nevadas and through the desert to Las Vegas where you might stand a shot of finding an undamanged hotel room. You guys aren't getting MY TAX DOLLARS to bail you out of your own bad choices like living in the State of California.

What a beautiful vision of the future being completely and utterly selfish is, huh?



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
with all this bickering over who deserves the kind help of our over bloated gov't.....
there is one aspect of this picture that seems to be missed!!!

why are so many people working in full time jobs and still coming home on payday and NEEDING THE GOV'T HELP OR ANYONE'S to pay the bills and put food on the table????

pay too low,
cost of living too high.
or are we americans just too danged stupid and do such a terrible job budgeting our finances???

or maybe all three???

whatever, but seems to be bickering about who deserves the help and eliminating those who are deemed not to deserve the help does nothing to solve the actual problem!!!
we need higher paying jobs
we need lower cost of living
we need more intelligence when it comes to our finances!!!

actually addressing those three issues might help some!!!
eliminating people from access to those programs isn't going to, and well, will just create more problems down the road...
and in this case one of those problems, at least half the country it seems thinks it a problem... is abortion!!!



Well...you know what YOU'RE problem is?? You're trying to actually solve the problem.

Didn't anybody give you the memo? The REAL money is in PERPETUATING problems. If you actually SOLVE a problem...then people don't need you anymore.

It's the American way.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   


And the red states have the most people on the dole. We all know that. And yet they rant about others getting welfare.


Yep. You know why they rant and rave so much whilst not even realizing that THEY ARE THE ONE'S THEY ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT?

Because statistically speaking the red-staters are vastly less educated and score lower on standardized IQ tests. Unfortunately...they aren't educated enough to realize it.

You know...maybe we should just cut the South loose, huh? I mean...after all these years there are STILL a whole lot of confederate flags and people talking about "the War of Northern Agression". The hell with them. Let's let'em go. They just siphon money off the tax rolls anyways...right?



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by HappyBunny

And now PA will deny benefits of these children who a) didn't ask to be born; and b) were conceived under the most violent circumstances possible.

But that's the GOP for ya. They'll fight tooth and nail to keep you from getting an abortion, but the minute the child is born, they don't give a damn what happens to it.


I think you skipped the part where I said that the best solution is to just take their word for it and work around that. It's an ugly and painful situation to be in without somebody scrutinizing your claims. Benefit of the doubt should apply here.

This is why any positive aspects a bill like this may or may not bring is outweighed (by far) by the damage it would cause.


So....you take their word for it and still deny the children the resources they need? And if the woman wants an abortion, give her a hard time about it.

How is that an advantage? Please explain, because I think I must be missing something.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder


And the red states have the most people on the dole. We all know that. And yet they rant about others getting welfare.


Yep. You know why they rant and rave so much whilst not even realizing that THEY ARE THE ONE'S THEY ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT?

Because statistically speaking the red-staters are vastly less educated and score lower on standardized IQ tests. Unfortunately...they aren't educated enough to realize it.

You know...maybe we should just cut the South loose, huh? I mean...after all these years there are STILL a whole lot of confederate flags and people talking about "the War of Northern Agression". The hell with them. Let's let'em go. They just siphon money off the tax rolls anyways...right?


Talk about a redistribution of wealth...from blue states to the red states.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by 3chainz

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by 3chainz
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


What is your point?


My point was condoms are a helluva lot better contraceptive method than none at all.


And people still get pregnant due to condom failure, so you have no real point.


I guess you're right. The only fool-proof, 100% method available is abstinence.


In the history of mankind tell me where that mindset has worked? Do you honestly think that is a realistic expectation?


...and let's remember. The vast majority of those who think "abstinence-only" is the only effective means of birth control belong to a religion which IS BASED UPON abstinence NOT preventing a certain pregnancy.

Unless, of course, the christians in the room just want to go ahead and state that they think the Mother Mary got knocked-up the old fashioned way, that is.

Besides...if EVEN pregnancies from rape are "Gods Will"...then who are we to question "God", right? Irrespective of whether the child was the product of a rape...ALL babies are here because of "Gods Will"...right?

So...isn't society refusing adequate food, shelter, clothing, and medical care to a child a direct middle finger to god himself? After all...if it's "God's Will" for the child to be born into poverty...then "god" must WANT that child to be here? That means taking care of ALL children. Even black one's whose mommies are crack addicts and anchor babies. It was "God's Divine Plan" for those illegal immigrants to slip into the country and have their child on US soil...whose to say that God didn't also intend for Ma' and Pa' Smiths tax rate to go up to support the whole family on welfare? Maybe the baby jesus wants it that way.

Any christian who wants to go on record and say that the idea of Predeterminism and all knowing, all-powerful "god" is starting to sound a bit crazy are free to chime in and revise their stance on whether or not christianity makes any sense at all.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by milominderbinder


And the red states have the most people on the dole. We all know that. And yet they rant about others getting welfare.


Yep. You know why they rant and rave so much whilst not even realizing that THEY ARE THE ONE'S THEY ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT?

Because statistically speaking the red-staters are vastly less educated and score lower on standardized IQ tests. Unfortunately...they aren't educated enough to realize it.

You know...maybe we should just cut the South loose, huh? I mean...after all these years there are STILL a whole lot of confederate flags and people talking about "the War of Northern Agression". The hell with them. Let's let'em go. They just siphon money off the tax rolls anyways...right?


Talk about a redistribution of wealth...from blue states to the red states.


Yep. I say we offer to cover the complete costs of relocate anybody who wants to move up north and once we have all the sane people out, we gut them loose and tell them to go play in the swamp together.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by HappyBunny

And now PA will deny benefits of these children who a) didn't ask to be born; and b) were conceived under the most violent circumstances possible.

But that's the GOP for ya. They'll fight tooth and nail to keep you from getting an abortion, but the minute the child is born, they don't give a damn what happens to it.


I think you skipped the part where I said that the best solution is to just take their word for it and work around that. It's an ugly and painful situation to be in without somebody scrutinizing your claims. Benefit of the doubt should apply here.

This is why any positive aspects a bill like this may or may not bring is outweighed (by far) by the damage it would cause.


So....you take their word for it and still deny the children the resources they need? And if the woman wants an abortion, give her a hard time about it.

How is that an advantage? Please explain, because I think I must be missing something.


What the heck are you talking about?! How did you get any of that out of what I said? I said give the mother the benefit of the doubt and that this bill is a bad idea. Are you just messing with me? Where did you get the idea that I was for this bill and where did you get any idea at all about my stance on abortion?



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by badgerprints

Originally posted by 3chainz


The whole point is that the GOP has no real reason to do this. The amount given per additional children is NOT MUCH. All non-rape babies are being punished, as well with the real rape babies with ashamed mothers.



If the baby is the result of a crime then the crime and criminal (if known) must be reported to the appropriate law enforcement office. If you want the extra money for a baby that is born from rape, show that the rape was properly reported. It's not PROOF. It's a case number. If they don't have the paperwork then they can request another copy. If they don't report the crime then that is their decision.

You must report the crime to receive the benefit. It's not that complicated.



Only around 10% of rapes are actually reported, and for good reason. And you skipped the part where I posted that if a woman reports the rape, the rapist can get visitation and custody of the child. In order to avoid that, the woman has to drop the rape charges against her attacker.

Until 1995, spousal rape was still legal here in PA. Just sayin'.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by HappyBunny

And now PA will deny benefits of these children who a) didn't ask to be born; and b) were conceived under the most violent circumstances possible.

But that's the GOP for ya. They'll fight tooth and nail to keep you from getting an abortion, but the minute the child is born, they don't give a damn what happens to it.


I think you skipped the part where I said that the best solution is to just take their word for it and work around that. It's an ugly and painful situation to be in without somebody scrutinizing your claims. Benefit of the doubt should apply here.

This is why any positive aspects a bill like this may or may not bring is outweighed (by far) by the damage it would cause.


So....you take their word for it and still deny the children the resources they need? And if the woman wants an abortion, give her a hard time about it.

How is that an advantage? Please explain, because I think I must be missing something.


What the heck are you talking about?! How did you get any of that out of what I said? I said give the mother the benefit of the doubt and that this bill is a bad idea. Are you just messing with me? Where did you get the idea that I was for this bill and where did you get any idea at all about my stance on abortion?


I misread what you wrote. My bad. I read it as "any negative aspects".

Apologies.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by milominderbinder


And the red states have the most people on the dole. We all know that. And yet they rant about others getting welfare.


Yep. You know why they rant and rave so much whilst not even realizing that THEY ARE THE ONE'S THEY ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT?

Because statistically speaking the red-staters are vastly less educated and score lower on standardized IQ tests. Unfortunately...they aren't educated enough to realize it.

You know...maybe we should just cut the South loose, huh? I mean...after all these years there are STILL a whole lot of confederate flags and people talking about "the War of Northern Agression". The hell with them. Let's let'em go. They just siphon money off the tax rolls anyways...right?


Talk about a redistribution of wealth...from blue states to the red states.


Yep. I say we offer to cover the complete costs of relocate anybody who wants to move up north and once we have all the sane people out, we gut them loose and tell them to go play in the swamp together.


I say we just let them secede, which in hindsight is what Lincoln should have done.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
I have to wonder why they chose this language.

Wouldn't it have been simpler to say - you can have x amount of children and get x amount of welfare, period. Except - under special circumstances which will be reviewed on a case by case basis.

What if a woman on welfare has a sibling die, and the sibling's child is given to her?

What if a disabled woman inherits children from a sibling who is killed in war? What if the limit is 2 kids and the dead soldier had 4?

What if the woman is a virgin, was never raped - but - the pregnancy is the second coming of Jesus?

What if the woman could have one more child - but the next pregnancy is twins?

It seems to me that there could be many, many scenarios outside of willful pregnancy or rape. What about these? And wouldn't have been simpler to word this legislation as such? 2 kid limit, all other cases to be handled on a case by case basis.

It makes you wonder why they are so fixated on rape. It also makes clear that they are not all that in touch with common peoples everyday lives. People *do die* and leave children behind. People *do have* twins and multiples. They *do* seem to believe that Jesus *is* coming back - alas, they made no provision for him, now did they?



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by HappyBunny

And now PA will deny benefits of these children who a) didn't ask to be born; and b) were conceived under the most violent circumstances possible.

But that's the GOP for ya. They'll fight tooth and nail to keep you from getting an abortion, but the minute the child is born, they don't give a damn what happens to it.


I think you skipped the part where I said that the best solution is to just take their word for it and work around that. It's an ugly and painful situation to be in without somebody scrutinizing your claims. Benefit of the doubt should apply here.

This is why any positive aspects a bill like this may or may not bring is outweighed (by far) by the damage it would cause.


So....you take their word for it and still deny the children the resources they need? And if the woman wants an abortion, give her a hard time about it.

How is that an advantage? Please explain, because I think I must be missing something.


What the heck are you talking about?! How did you get any of that out of what I said? I said give the mother the benefit of the doubt and that this bill is a bad idea. Are you just messing with me? Where did you get the idea that I was for this bill and where did you get any idea at all about my stance on abortion?


I misread what you wrote. My bad. I read it as "any negative aspects".

Apologies.


No problem. It's a charged and tough subject. I think issues that revolve around a woman's reproductive system (like abortion and, unfortunately, rape) should primarily be decided by people with vaginas.

If dudes could get pregnant, I think the GOP would have a faaaar different stance on these issues. I don't pretend to know the answers other than I believe supporting single mothers would naturally reduce abortion. You can't be against social welfare and abortion at the same time. Incompatible concepts.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by HappyBunny

And now PA will deny benefits of these children who a) didn't ask to be born; and b) were conceived under the most violent circumstances possible.

But that's the GOP for ya. They'll fight tooth and nail to keep you from getting an abortion, but the minute the child is born, they don't give a damn what happens to it.


I think you skipped the part where I said that the best solution is to just take their word for it and work around that. It's an ugly and painful situation to be in without somebody scrutinizing your claims. Benefit of the doubt should apply here.

This is why any positive aspects a bill like this may or may not bring is outweighed (by far) by the damage it would cause.


So....you take their word for it and still deny the children the resources they need? And if the woman wants an abortion, give her a hard time about it.

How is that an advantage? Please explain, because I think I must be missing something.


What the heck are you talking about?! How did you get any of that out of what I said? I said give the mother the benefit of the doubt and that this bill is a bad idea. Are you just messing with me? Where did you get the idea that I was for this bill and where did you get any idea at all about my stance on abortion?


I misread what you wrote. My bad. I read it as "any negative aspects".

Apologies.


No problem. It's a charged and tough subject. I think issues that revolve around a woman's reproductive system (like abortion and, unfortunately, rape) should primarily be decided by people with vaginas.


Thank you.
Not to be sexist, but men really don't have the first clue when it comes to these issues.


If dudes could get pregnant, I think the GOP would have a faaaar different stance on these issues. I don't pretend to know the answers other than I believe supporting single mothers would naturally reduce abortion. You can't be against social welfare and abortion at the same time. Incompatible concepts.


There are women in the party, though. Although their beliefs are just as medieval as the men's. I'm thinking of Michelle Bachmann's "subservient to my husband" thing. And the co-sponsor of this ridiculous bill is a woman.

Ann Coulter thinks single mothers are the bane of society and the scourge of the Earth.




top topics



 
21
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join