Page #1
Pages: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 ...#90
New Comment Rating: 0 Similar topics: 1.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF 2.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF II 3.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF III 4.Be honest!! 5.Is this about you 🤷♂️, those that live in glass houses should not throw stones. Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
only registered users can see external links
The Economy could prosper and the people not because of high labor prices
If a large number of people in any country ,US included, are on income plans claiming mental illness, that financial burden drags down a country. You don't fix mental, it is a drain.
You find something those people can do to earn a wage if it is something as simple as sweeping floors
With benefits, it's the people who prosper, without it's the wealthy.
Your country is for 70% dependent on internal consumption.
It's not the wealthy who create a healthy economy, it's the people.
If the people have money to spend, the economy prospers.
The only escape from that economic principle is trade, but Trump created tariffs.
You said you don't care about trade, but if you want your economy to do well,
you need Americans to buy your products. Lowering wages is a downward spiral.
Your billionaires cannot spend your economy healthy.
Maybe you should think about people not spending money on useless expenses
to directly pay the wealthy, without creating economic activity. For instance, high rent
for buildings that have existed for decades. That's just a clear handout to the owners
of the buildings, that creates almost no economic activity. Another is health insurance.
It only takes a lot of money from everyone, to transfer money to the wealthy, without creating health benefits for the people. It damages the economy, because it reduces people's spending power, without creating much economic activity. They are leaches.
What's the cause of the high number of mental illness cases in your country?
I think that it's the individualism, and the anti-rationality movement.
/ˌindəˈvij(ə
noun
noun: individualism
1.
the habit or principle of being independent and self-reliant.
"a culture that celebrates individualism and wealth"
h
Similar:
independence
self-direction
self-reliance
freethinking
free thought
originality
unconventionality
eccentricity
libertarianism
self-centered feeling or conduct; egoism.
2.
a social theory favoring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control.
"encouragement has been given to individualism, free enterprise, and the pursuit of profit"
So you are saying our mental illness is caused by freedom?
Let me paste this again so you won't miss it
"individualism
1.
the habit or principle of being independent and self-reliant.
"a culture that celebrates individualism and wealth"
h
Similar:
independence
self-direction
self-reliance
freethinking
free thought
originality
unconventionality
eccentricity
libertarianism
In other words you think everyone should follow the leader,not think for themselves and just be a drone and they will be Your definition of mentally healthy??
you know better than that!
In that sense, it means the opposite of solidarity. It means you're on your own,
no communities of people helping each other in a time of need.
It is sold as freedom, but it actually strips the thing that made humanity prosper.
Yes, it is creating mental illness, to push people apart, like your movement is doing.
I am personally very much an individualist. I don't do anything just because it's what society expects of me. The term for that is "nonconformist individualism".
I am very much an autonomy-focused individualist. I value:
- Personal freedom of thought
- The right to choose your life path
- Not being pressured into traditional roles
- Authentic self-direction
This aligns with:
- Existentialist individualism (Sartre, de Beauvoir)
- Left libertarian / anarchist individualism
- Liberal humanism
- “Self-direction” in modern psychology
However, I am also a socialist, which means that I am definately NOT:
1) Atomistic individualist
- The belief that people are essentially separate, self-contained units
- Downplays interdependence
- Treats community as optional or irrelevant
- Often assumes social obligations = loss of freedom
This is the type many socialists (and sociologists) criticize.
2) Egoistic or competitive individualist
- Prioritizes self-interest above all
- Views society as a competition of individuals
- Measures success by outcompeting others
- Favors inequality as a natural outcome
This is incompatible with socialist values.
3) “Rugged” individualist
- “Everyone should fend for themselves”
- Distrust of social welfare, solidarity, public services
- Resistance to collective safety nets
- Often tied to neoliberal or libertarian-conservative ideology
This is the main type of individualism that I reject.
4) Market individualist
- Defines freedom mainly as consumer choice
- Sees society through a market lens
- Frames people primarily as economic actors
- Accepts or encourages large inequalities as a result of market outcomes
Definitely at odds with democratic socialism.
Is this all you had to say about that?
I was talking economics mostly. Got anything to say about that?
I am sorry, you are not 100% wrong but you sure aren't 100% right either. You have been indoctrinated to believe you have to depend on others to meet the simplest most basic needs in life. So sad really,I honestly can't even visualize your motivation to get out of bed in the morning.
Why would you think that?
How about the "I take care of my village" attitude?
To be indoctrinated, there needs to be someone doing the indoctrination.
There is none, it's 24/7 celebration of capitalism here too.
I cannot turn on the TV or radio, without being fed right-wing lies.
I recognize it, because I can think for myself, that's what happened to me.
I see what is happening, and I understand how to recognize causes.
There are simple facts that you cannot deny. Housing was mostly done by the government before, when most people could easily afford to rent, and a mechanic could buy a house. Then housing was left to 'the market', making investors wealthy, and now only couples with two highly paid jobs can afford to buy a house. Owning a house is the strongest wealth-building tool in capitalism, but the number of people who can afford it has gone done a lot and keeps going down. That's hard evidence for right-wing policies fucking the average person over. Why don't you understand?
I actually have a good reason to get out of bed, because my job is worthwhile and it pays well. Do you know how many Americans hate their jobs? They work and work and work, and they still don't make enough money to pay for a $500 emergency.
Do you think that is good motivation to get out of bed?
Everything is backwards with you, because YOU consume propaganda 24/7.
You are sharing it here. It's all designed to divide people, blame each other,
for why you're all working like slaves for peanuts, so you don't notice that
the wealthy are taking all your money.
How do you tell someone who is getting scammed that they're getting scammed?
What needs to happen to you, to make the blinders drop from your eyes?
No where is it in stone that life is easy,cheap or fair.
But if you want a future, no better time to learn how to work for it than when you are young and impressionable. The struggle ends 1, when you retire from a reputable company and have a good check coming in each month,or 2, when you die.
No where is it in stone life is fair,easy or cheap
Another thing, retirement is not the end of the struggle. You are looking at the income part only. Life is much, much, more than that.
If you waste your entire check living above your means,no you won't get there
Also, what happens with people like you and my ex? Both of you got injured. Are you a dumb f…k because you got hurt? And what happens if the retirement fund goes insolvent and your pension stops?
Like what? Work 100 hrs/week?
I just told you that a mechanic could afford a house, on 40 hrs/week, when I was young. I'm talking about my father, who first bought an apartment and then a pretty big family home, only a few years later. Interest on mortgages was around 10% back then, and you had to pay a significant sum from your pocket.
My father was the family provider and my mom was a stay at home mom.
Buying a house like my father bought, today, takes TWO people, both with higher educations, and good steady jobs, to afford. A mechanic cannot even afford to RENT on their own anymore.
Do we all need to be managers or lawyers now? Are mechanics still allowed
to live a decent life? Or do they all need to work 100 hrs/week?
You're also not consistent; when we talk about education becoming unaffordable, you are saying that people don't need it, they should just be a tradesperson.
And now you are telling people to work and study hard to get good grades to get a scholarship to help pay the cost of college. Where are those scholarships coming from? Can everyone get them? This is obviously not a solution for everyone.
Even if everyone is working and studying the hardest that is humanly possible,
then scholarships are STILL going to the few smartest people.
Why do people need to do all this "finding ways to make more money",
when they didn't need to do that before?
That 500,000 dollar house was 230,000 dollar, not even 2 decades ago.
Wages didn't go up that fast, so what happened?
Why did life get less "fair,easy or cheap" in only 20 years?
You keep giving nonsense reactions, to obvious problems. Be more honest.
I will pm the rest,
You're still not addressing the fact that tradespeople could afford to buy a home and support a family on one income. More people are working than in that time, but people are less well off, even if couples are both working. That's just a fact.
This is not just bad for tradespeople, it's bad for the whole country.
Didn't you say that you wanted America to make stuff again?
To make stuff, you need people to want to be tradespeople,
instead of everyone picking educations to be managers and lawyers.
If you want America to split itself off from the rest of the world,
and you want to close the borders to trade, you need to create
a strong internal economy. You cannot do that with poor people.
America was at it's strongest when the middle class was booming
and you had high taxes on the wealthy, which paid for big investments.
Now your middle class is suffering and your country is losing its place
in the world. The ideas that you support are clearly the cause of this,
but you keep supporting those failed ideas. The US is crumbling.
There is nothing MAGA about it, when Trump is clearly destroying America.
Trump is clearly "winning" too much, and he IS destroying your country.
I don't know how to translate this money to Us dollars
only registered users can see external links
That's $53,918.27/year, $25.68/hour. Google can easily convert it for you.
Just ask "€22 in dollar" and it tells you.
There are of course many types of mechanic, at different levels of education.
At $53,918.27/year, the mechanic could get a mortgage between $215,656 and $269,570. There are still some houses in some areas of my country for sale at that price, but the house of my parents is 3 times the value.
only registered users can see external links
If you work for 10 years and make $1,000,000, you pay $300,000–$400,000 in taxes.
Who thinks it is fair to get taxed for working, but not for just getting it?
Could it be organized more fairly?
I know Anannas thinks when family dies all their money and stuff goes to the state to be dispersed among those that did nothing for it.
What people miss is if a person looses a parent or loved 1, that money is not free, it cost them their father ,mother or etc. Taxes were already paid.
Land and material things, taxes and fees have been paid for length of time of ownership.
Why is worked taxed so high and inheritance so low?
The answer is NOT "because the parents already paid their taxes".
We can fix that and tax working LESS and tax having lost of money MORE
and tax generational transfer of money MORE.
Why is EARNING money taxed so much more, than HAVING money
and just GETTING money that you haven't EARNED yourself?
You're only focusing on the parents, not on the kids.
Didn't I ask: "Could it be organized more fairly?"?
Why is it fair that some people don't have to work, because their parents are rich
and some people have almost no chances to make it, no matter how hard they work,
because their parents are poor? Is that fair?
Why is winning the birth lottery rewarded and working punished?
phart, lay off on this one, let quint answer.
You already answered for me, don't answer for him too.
just because you don't want your family to be better off than you when you pass away doesn't mean others don't love and care for their kids.
it is simple jealousy from those who parents were drunken hippies and didn't leave them anything that complain.
Generational wealth transfer is the cause of the problems, NOT the solution.
People's kids WILL be poorer than them, because politics favors the wealthy.
You should want those kids to be ABLE to make a life for themselves.
My father bought his first apartment at age 25. How old does the current generation need to be, before their parents die and leave them some money, to finally be able
to buy a house?
Houses are scarce goods, they are either owned by the people who live in them
or they are owned by the wealthy who ask top dollar for them, to become more wealthy and buy up more houses. It's our generation that can still make a choice to have people own their own homes, and prevent that the wealthy own everything.
Remember your side being outraged about the phrase "you will own nothing and be happy"? This was a prediction made by the World Economic Forum (WEF) in a 2016, and your side is turning it into a reality. TAX THE RICH, or be happy owning NOTHING.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Note this video was made in 2022, and they are talking about how bad the economyiis crashing! Who was pres then?
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
I only do business with 1 place that does not take cash and that is the county dump. And I complain to the commissioners all the time about it
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
No bills, no problems
No problems? One tiny infection can kill you.
What do you think his teeth are like? Would he still have some?
Maybe you would have more rational political insights, if you wouldn't romanticize
living like a wild animal or some caveman. You are probably still recovering somewhat from a medical intervention that saved your life, but instead of absorbing that into your worldview, you think people are better off living like we did 10,000 years ago.
Understand that even the poorest person in the modern world has a much better
quality of life than the people back then. About half the children died before the age of 5, from some disease, accident or being eaten by a predator.
Every Day Began With Uncertainty. A person woke up not knowing if they would eat that day. Seasons mattered brutally: winter or drought could mean days with almost nothing—maybe a handful of nuts, bitter roots, or dried meat if they had been lucky enough to store some.
Cold, heat, wind, and rain all mattered more than any predator.
Clothing was animal hide, often stiff, smelly, and poorly insulating. Shelters were drafty huts or temporary camps. A single storm could wipe out a group’s food stores, trap them indoors, or kill the very young and the very old.
Aches, injuries, and infections were simply part of existence.
- No painkillers beyond plants that dulled the senses
- No medical treatment for sprains, fractures, or infected wounds
- Teeth worn down from grit in stone-ground food
- Parasites, fleas, lice
Most adults lived with chronic pain that would send a modern person to the ER.
Large predators still roamed in many regions—lions, wolves, cave bears, saber-toothed cats (in earlier periods), hyenas.
Even more dangerous were simply:
Falls, Cuts that got infected, Snakebites, Fires and Conflict with other groups. Any of these could be fatal.
Parents expected to lose children; grief was constant, quiet, and communal.
Whether hunter-gatherer or early farmer, work was exhausting.
For hunters:
- Track animals for hours or days
- Carry heavy meat back to camp
- Face dangerous prey
For gatherers:
- Bend and kneel for hours collecting roots, seeds, nuts
- Process plants by scraping, pounding, grinding
For early farmers:
- Dig, plant, weed, haul water
- Defend fields from animals
- Store grain or risk starvation
While some individuals lived into their 50s or even 60s, the average life expectancy was dramatically pulled down by:
- infant deaths
- infections
- accidents
- childbirth risks
- malnutrition
Living to 30 was already an accomplishment.
Anxiety was a permanent companion:
- Will we eat tomorrow?
- Will the weather turn?
- Is that sound a predator?
- Are other tribes approaching?
There was wonder, community, and meaning—but also relentless uncertainty.
The only upside I see from that time is that the tribe helped each other to stay alive. Nowadays, people are completely isolated from each other. People are selfish, because that is idolized as the goal for self improvement. The sad thing is that people who support that selfish system often point to 10,000 years back, calling it "survival of the fittest".
That is very dishonest propaganda to justify inequality, because it is the opposite of what evolution teaches. Humans survived because of cooperation, resource sharing, division of labor, caring for the vulnerable and group solidarity.
they didn't have micro plastics in their water. They didn't have jet fuel particles falling on them from the sky. They didn't have covid,
So many things they didn't have that we have to deal with today.
IF 1 caveman stole another cavemans woman that cave man could wack the thief over the head and get his woman back.didn't have to go thru divorce either if they spilt up.
Question is, did a form of racism exist back then?
Is there an evolutionary explanation for racism?
Another theory from evolutionary psychology is that racism may have evolved as an “energy-saving” strategy. To interact or mate with ethnically different groups would have involved a lot of time and energy, through coordinating with different social norms.
right-wing news outlets, they were worried if they would survive the oncoming winter.
Coronaviruses have been around for millions of years, long before humans existed. Paleovirology has found some evidence that we inherited some resistance from the Neanderthals. Still, they died of so many diseases that we consider mild today.
And of course modern medicine has conquered several horrible diseases.
Unfortunately, modern anti-science is bringing some of them back.
The behavioral tendencies for racism are probably very old, but back then tribalism overruled it. People didn't just distrust other races, they distrust everyone outside of their tribe. It's behavior that is even observed in apes.
What I've read about it is that we have evolutionary tendencies to determine in-groups and out-groups, but racism emerged from cultural, political, and economic forces.
Racism as we understand it today—fixed, hierarchical, and global—emerged primarily in the last 500 years, driven by:
- colonial expansion
- the transatlantic slave trade
- European imperial ideologies
- scientific racism in the 18th–19th centuries
Slave trading has been going on for thousands of years, but it wasn't based on race. Read the bible and see how the Jews had different rules about owning slaves for Jews and everyone else. That was not based on race, because everyone in that area looked the same. It was based on in-groups and out-groups.
I don't think it's based on energy conservation, I think it's based on power preservation.
For a dominant group, defining another group as “inferior,” “different,” or “dangerous” creates:
- a boundary around the in-group
- a rationale for unequal treatment
- a story that justifies their power
This makes it easier to maintain control without relying solely on force.
Racism provides ideological cover for distributing benefits unequally: land, jobs, political rights, education, wealth and safety.
By claiming that some groups are “naturally suited” to labor, or “less civilized,” or “less intelligent,” the ruling group can preserve advantages and restrict competition.
A key principle of power is: It’s easier to rule a population that is divided than one that is united. Racism:
- creates divisions among the working class or subordinate groups
- prevents coalitions that might challenge the dominant group
- redirects frustration toward minority groups instead of toward the powerful
It legitimizes coercive institutions. Cultural beliefs about racial difference allow the in-group to build institutions that reinforce inequality, such as:
- segregated schools
- restricted voting rights
- discriminatory policing
- immigration controls
- unequal legal systems
These become seen as “necessary” instead of oppressive.
It stabilizes the dominant group’s identity. Power is not only material—it is also psychological. Racism gives the in-group:
- a sense of superiority
- a justification for their privileged position
- a shared identity built around dominance
This creates emotional cohesion within the ruling group.
It masks the real mechanisms of power. Racism can make inequality appear:
- natural
- inevitable
- rooted in biology
- the “fault” of the oppressed group
This hides the structural causes, allowing the powerful to avoid accountability.
Thus, racism is not an evolutionary adaptation, it is a cultural strategy that societies can (and often do) use to maintain power structures.
only registered users can see external links
I guess the democrats run similar experiments on adults. give them everything then tell them the republicans are going to take it away! instilling fear in them at election time to win their votes yet again.
only registered users can see external links
was 81.9% at the end of the second quarter of 2025.
In the second quarter of 2025, the U.S. government's debt-to-GDP ratio was 119.4%.
If the EU is broke, the US is much more broke.
The EU is asking the UK for “billions”, but these are not arbitrary demands; they are part of a legally binding Brexit financial settlement. It’s the UK repaying agreed obligations as part of the Brexit exit deal.
So, you're just parroting filthy lies for a political reason.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
"Markets don't crash when things look bad, they crash when the forces
holding everything together finally break"
only registered users can see external links
Real economics destroying the wealthy's favorite lie.
Well apparently you CAN live without a brain!!!
only registered users can see external links
I don't think it's possible to live without any piece of brain.
Still that aint much.
the parrot has that much brain!and he can talk!
How about knowing early in the development of the zygote/fetus, that the child
will end up like this, and giving the woman the choice to end that pregnancy?
" oh this baby may have a iq lower than 125" abort abort abort!
You may rest easy killing the unborn, but i can't
Really? Do you think that people are thinking that, about their pregnancy?
You have strange ideas about people.
If there are people like that, I very much think they shouldn't have children.
But, let me answer your slippery slope fallacy, with a whataboutism.
If murder is illegal, how can people still defend themselves?
The answer: Because we "draw the line" with LAWS.
You may rest easy by killing people in boats, who are drugs smugglers at worst, without a day in court. Those are living and thinking people, the unborn are not.
Your ideas are forcing women to carry and give birth to a child like that,
and then have parents or society care for a vegetable 24/7 for it's life.
Personally, I don’t care one way or the other if abortion exists. I just don't want my tax dollars to fund what is, essentially, an elective medical procedure.
That was exactly in line with my meaning.
It's a slippery slope argument. Here is an example:
"If trespassing is illegal, then why are Jehovah's Witnesses not arrested?"
Reverse logic: "If listening to music is legal, then why can’t people
blast it at airplane-engine volume in the middle of the night?"
Why don't you want your tax dollars to fund elective medical procedures?
The only difference between emergency care and elective medical procedures
is that an emergency is needed to prevent the patient from dying right-now,
while elective medical procedures can be scheduled in advance, because
the life of the patient is not in immediate danger.
The next examples are all elective medical procedures:
- Hip replacements
- Knee replacement or reconstruction surgery
- Most hernia repairs
- Cataract surgery
- Gallbladder removal (when not emergent)
- Heart bypass surgery (when not done during an active crisis)
What makes it better for you, to fund these medical procedures through
for-profit insurance, instead of tax-dollars? Do you think that you will never
need an elective medical procedure?
Unless the Jehovahs had to defeat some sort of barrier, such as a locked gate, or they ignored a sign warning them to keep out, they may still enter, until such time you demand they leave. If they refuse to leave, or if had they defeated barriers or ignored signage, then they have committed the crime of trespass.
It seems a basic understanding of trespassing laws is in order here.
Then there is the elephant in the room. How can you equate joint replacement and other serious medical procedures with abortion? That is a false equivalence argument. It’s an apples-to-oranges comparison! One may be pregnant and still function normally in most physical activities, such as walking, reading, etc. How can one function if he cannot see or walk, or is living in constant severe pain? Really!
Abortion IS an elective procedure, one that historically has demanded that I fund it without my consent! You don’t have to get pregnant. It is a choice that involves a certain voluntary activity for a vast majority of the cases, whereas people rarely choose to lose the function of joints and organs. Pregnancy is 100% preventable! Aging is not!
I’m surprised you didn’t also throw insulin into that mess, with the attitude you’ve displayed thus far!
You’re scraping the bottom of the logic barrel, grasping at totally unrelated medical procedures in an attempt to justify using other people’s money for a procedure that could easily have been prevented!
That’s just lame.
that was the whole argument. I'm explaining the slippery slope argument to you, because you didn't understand it the first time, and it's going right over your head again.
I am arguing against pharts argument "where do you draw the line?",
saying "oh this baby may have a iq lower than 125, abort abort abort!"
The "line" that we draw is the law. The same law that defines the limit between Jehovahs entering your property and trespassing, which you specified.
So, there could be al law that keeps abortion legal, but excludes the reason that it's IQ would be lower than 125, or whatever other nonsense phart makes up.
We we talking about abortion for a fetus that develops without a brain, like the woman from the article that phart shared. Do you you have an opinion on that?
Do you think that every fetus with abnormalities or genetic diseases should be born, even if they are sure to live like a vegetable or will likely die immediately after birth? That's what Republicans are enforcing now, so your primitive thinking about who funds it, is a bit unsatisfactory for all those women who must deliver a baby that has no chance at a normal life, and the parents who have to care for it, the rest of it's life (if it dies young) or the rest of their life (if it doesn't die young).
We are talking about abortion being legal or not, not if it is funded with tax-dollars.
It was YOU who said that elective procedures shouldn't be funded by tax-dollars. That includes joint replacement and other serious medical procedures.
But, since we are talking about money. Do you understand the energy, time and MONEY that a severely disabled child costs? With your broken healthcare system, a child like that is unaffordable. If parents cannot meet that burden, is your government stepping in? Are you OK with your tax-dollars funding all those severely disabled people, because Republicans took away the CHOICE to abort them?
Is it a false equivalence to compare abortion with joint replacement and other serious medical procedures? It fucking well isn't, when Republicans are excluding abortions for DEAD fetuses. The total abortion ban has already caused 59 deaths of women with abnormal or death fetuses, and the ACPM estimates potentially 210 additional maternal deaths per year in certain states as a result of abortion bans. That makes abortion more important than a joint replacement, in a lot of cases. How can one function, when they are DEAD?
No, pregnancy is not 100% preventable. Many girls and women get r@ped. Republicans in some red states are already banning abortion for r@pe victims.
Do you think every fertile female should be on anti-conception, in case they get r@ped? Also, anti-conception is not 100% effective. The end result is that many women get pregnant unintentionally, without any fault of their own.
Let's throw insulin into that mess. Who is grasping at totally unrelated medical ... , here? (it's not even a procedure)
I think it should be either 100% covered by insurance or funded by taxes.
With your attitude, I expect you don't.
Again, no one was talking about who pays for abortions, until YOU did. We were talking about abortions being allowed by law, or not. Most abortions can be performed with some pills. I am fine with people paying for them out of pocket.
In 75% of the cases, abortions in the US are performed because the woman
is not financially secure enough to take care of it. So, if you don't like abortions,
maybe start thinking about solving that. Even giving birth itself sets people back on average $2,743. Do you think giving birth is an elective procedure?
And even if some women are getting pregnant due to their own stupidity, do you think that those dumb-asses should be parents? How about having people wait with parenting, until they have some idea that they are up to the responsibility?
Why do people like you always support ideas that fuck up your country?
It's very clear that you don't have an IQ limit for abortions. DAMN!
**** is 1 of the few exceptions i would negotiate a settlement to make frivolous 1's illegal. I would like to know where you get the 75% number being because of money issues.
A quick googleing,
"The predominant themes identified as reasons for seeking abortion included financial reasons (40%), timing (36%), partner related reasons (31%), and the need to focus on other children (29%).Jul 5, 2013
Understanding why women seek abortions in the US - PMC
National Institutes of Health (.gov)"
That tells me alot, that tells me that most of them could very easily be prevented by simply keeping legs closed and zippers up or give the poor guy a "hoover" job and move along.
R@pe should be covered by the rapist with his assets being put in a trust to take care of the baby once born if the mother chooses to keep it or pay for the abortion and the fellows food while rotting in jail.
Convenience abortions should be paid for out of the woman's pocket or the mans pocket or both. since it took both to create the situation, ideally both should cover the cost. IF the woman even has a clue who's it's daddy.
Timing and partner reasons are mostly financial too. That's where the 75% comes from.
That mostly of them COULD be prevented is probably true. That's not reality though. Women get pregnant unintentionally, and the reason can be an argument for who pays for it, but not for it being illegal.
Do you think having children should be punishment, for being stupid?
I sort of agree that careless people need to pay for their own abortion,
but look at it this way: the people who cannot pay for it are in the worst position to take care of a child.
Why do you want all those unwanted children, being raised by stupid people,
in desperate financial need? Don't you think your country has enough losers?
You are complaining about your drugs problem, but that is not a supply problem, that is a demand problem. And your idea of putting more losers on this earth
is creating the demand.
“What about the **** victims?” they declare while wringing their hands.
Typical. It’s always the worst case scenario, every time, when abortion is questioned!
The vast majority of abortions NEVER involve sexual assault. They rarely do. Only a tiny percentage of “****” victims ever get pregnant from the assault.
This is the moral equivalent to saying, “In order to prevent drunk driving, we must force everyone blow into a breathalyzer in order to start their cars, because some of them like to drink and drive."
H.R. 3, with the exception of a few narrow categories that have been accepted for many years, provides that the Federal Government shall not make taxpayers pay for, subsidize, encourage, or facilitate abortions or insurance coverage that includes abortion.
I have no problem with being called stupid, if you can show me to be wrong on anything.
Instead, you show you don't understand basic concepts.
New Comment Go to top