quote:

ORIGINAL: Louve00

The thing the bothers me over it though is you force a woman for moral reasons to have a baby.  She can't afford it, she applies for public assistance.  We scream we shouldn't have to support poor people.  Arent't we creating our own problems by meddling in another's (a woman's) problems or decisions?

quote:

It's actually interesting...

Who's having abortions (income)?
Women with family incomes less than $15,000 obtain 28.7% of all abortions; Women with family incomes between $15,000 and $29,999 obtain 19.5%; Women with family incomes between $30,000 and $59,999 obtain 38.0%; Women with family incomes over $60,000 obtain 13.8%.

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

That still seems like a pretty low income but it's the highest percentage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

quote:

It's actually interesting...

Who's having abortions (income)?
Women with family incomes less than $15,000 obtain 28.7% of all abortions; Women with family incomes between $15,000 and $29,999 obtain 19.5%; Women with family incomes between $30,000 and $59,999 obtain 38.0%; Women with family incomes over $60,000 obtain 13.8%.

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

That still seems like a pretty low income but it's the highest percentage.

What's interesting is the arbitrary way that the income groups are split up.

Women with family incomes up to $29,999 obtain 48.2% of all abortions, women in the next $29,999 additional income group obtain 10.2% fewer abortions than the first group ...

All in the selectivity for the desired presentation, same as anything else. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

Dude, your math is fucked. Women in the 30K-60K group have 21.16% FEWER (the correct word is FEWER, not less, for all you semi-literates: Edwynn used the correct word, which is rare these days. Kudos.) abortions than the 0K-30K group: (48.2-38.0)/48.2 x 100 = percentage (decrease) change. Do you follow?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
What's interesting is the arbitrary way that the income groups are split up.

Women with family incomes up to $29,999 obtain 48.2% of all abortions, women in the next $29,999 additional income group obtain 10.2% fewer abortions than the first group ...

All in the selectivity for the desired presentation, same as anything else. 

quote:

Who's having abortions (income)?
Women with family incomes less than $15,000 obtain 28.7% of all abortions; Women with family incomes between $15,000 and $29,999 obtain 19.5%; Women with family incomes between $30,000 and $59,999 obtain 38.0%; Women with family incomes over $60,000 obtain 13.8%.

quote:

Bunch of shit all of it. The only thing is this, if the Father is known he should be given the chance to have the kid. That means pay all the costs, take all responsibility for the raising and everything to come. Pay his "uterus" if that's all she is for her time and trouble, and every single bill incurred. But I don't think Roe v Wade took that into consideration, know why ?

Because there is more money to be made by taking guy's driver's licenses for $50,000 back child support after she moves ten states away, ten years later, they get tow fees, fines, reinstatement and a cut of the support payments.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Louve00

The thing the bothers me over it though is you force a woman for moral reasons to have a baby.  She can't afford it, she applies for public assistance.  We scream we shouldn't have to support poor people.  Arent't we creating our own problems by meddling in another's (a woman's) problems or decisions?

A parent of 3 loses his job, and cant afford to feed all 3 of them. He decides to kill the youngest so the other 2 can survive without going on public assistance. Arent we creating our own problems by meddling in a parents problems or decisions?

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Louve00

quote:

ORIGINAL: housesub4you

What about the GOP battle cry, less government in the lives of people, smaller government,

You can't preach about less government over people and then send bills to the floor about more government control over what women can do with their bodies. 

Dam next they will be passing laws on what clothes people can wear in public.....oh wait they already did that.  Yea for Smaller government

THAT!!! is a very valid point.  Preach about less government, be a dictator to how certain people run their lives (or should run them), then turn their backs on the consequences of their decisions.

Very, very, very good point!!!

Its only a valid point if you don't consider a defenseless fetus a person.

quote:

ORIGINAL: stellauk

Ah but you still got the death penalty on the statutes in the vast majority of states. Each time you execute a criminal you're punishing innocent people - i.e. the family - through bereavement.

quote:


These people need to work out whether they are really pro-life or not, and if they are, then surely the death penalty needs to be abolished completely before they start passing anti-abortion laws.

Passing anti-abortion laws but keeping the death penalty isn't pro-life.

It's hypocrisy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: stellauk

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Louve00

quote:

ORIGINAL: housesub4you

What about the GOP battle cry, less government in the lives of people, smaller government,

You can't preach about less government over people and then send bills to the floor about more government control over what women can do with their bodies. 

Dam next they will be passing laws on what clothes people can wear in public.....oh wait they already did that.  Yea for Smaller government

THAT!!! is a very valid point.  Preach about less government, be a dictator to how certain people run their lives (or should run them), then turn their backs on the consequences of their decisions.

Very, very, very good point!!!

Its only a valid point if you don't consider a defenseless fetus a person.

Ah but you still got the death penalty on the statutes in the vast majority of states. Each time you execute a criminal you're punishing innocent people - i.e. the family - through bereavement.

These people need to work out whether they are really pro-life or not, and if they are, then surely the death penalty needs to be abolished completely before they start passing anti-abortion laws.

Passing anti-abortion laws but keeping the death penalty isn't pro-life.

It's hypocrisy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Louve00
I would even question wanting to terminate a pregnancy in the 2nd trimester and skeptically question an abortion in the third trimester.  But getting an abortion when a woman just finds out (in the first trimester), to thwart off any problems she can't deal with, to me, is not a crime and it certainly isn't murder.  I would say its more like being responsible, practical and taking care of business....Her business.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Also, they should require larger parking areas and wider sidewalks at the clinics. Between the protesters and the volunteer escorts, who are there all day, the poor women coming in for a flush shouldn't need to park two blocks away.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

The religious wing of the party eats this shit up, Tazzy. It's great fund-raising for both sides.

I pretty much ignore it, because it will go away.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Louve00

The thing the bothers me over it though is you force a woman for moral reasons to have a baby.  She can't afford it, she applies for public assistance.  We scream we shouldn't have to support poor people.  Arent't we creating our own problems by meddling in another's (a woman's) problems or decisions?

A parent of 3 loses his job, and cant afford to feed all 3 of them. He decides to kill the youngest so the other 2 can survive without going on public assistance. Arent we creating our own problems by meddling in a parents problems or decisions?