So, given that there were 630,000 abortions per year in the USA but there are 11.3 million children living under the poverty line without healthcare insurance in the USA - I take it that given an option to choose between a candidate that favors universal health insurance over abortion restriction you will choose that first?
Hmmm....how much would it cost to restrict an abortion? Let's keep pushing for universal health care, though.
That's not the question. In the past you claimed that you voted for candidates you did not love because they were for restriction abortion. Given your very clear announcement about the value of life , a couple of posts above, if the options were, as they have in recent elections, between a candidate that favors abortion restriction but disagrees with universal healthcare vs a candidate that opposes abortion restriction but strives for universal healthcare, you will vote for the 2nd, am I right? You know what, I do not care, I do not believe whatever nonsense you will say anyway. At this point, it's about actions, not words. Your actions, repeatedly, show that you have not voted based on the very clear announcement you made a couple of posts above.
Your guess? If you believe it's the governments responsibility to force women to give birth, is not their responsibility to also make sure that baby is taken care of? The government is going to force women who don't have the financial ability to raise children to have them regardless. There isn't nearly enough programs or good enough healthcare to help the all the women this will affect.
Why would someone even take the chance on getting pregnant if they know in their mind they can't potentially support their child?
oh for fuck's sake...ignorance is not an excuse here. you love to ask questions that you don't want to hear the answer to..
Dude. Don't play dumb. There is a wide spectrum of what pregnancies cost. One child with perfect health does not equal one pregnancy with a child with special needs.
You're talking completely separate instances. For the last time, I'm advocating for the unborn child.
No, you said someone should be ready for the financial implications if a child. The spectrum is large. You don't know when you have sex and plant your seed that the kid is going to have any disabilities or disorders.
It is sounding like you are advocating for families to get their financials in order before having children even if it means the child has special needs. Something they won't always know until the child is born. Or, we can be a better society and take care of our most vulnerable.
In a perfect world there would be no need for abortions. We live in a far cry from a perfect world, and it's moving the other way every day. In the world we live in, abortions are necessary. A woman should get to choose whether to bring a child into this world or not, regardless of her decision of having sex or not. That Republicans want to force raped women and raped girls to give birth to the child of their rapist is fucking dispicable and reprehensible. I have seen some of the responses from Republican politicians who smile and say yeah they need to be forced to give birth. WTF?! Wrong is wrong dude.
It is really simple. #1 - women raped. Should get the decision. #2 baby didn't develop vital organs by the 20 week mark, #3 - birth would kill the mother. I don't know how anyone with a soul could look at those three situations and go, nope, no abortions for you. Animals.
We can be, both, responsible beforehand, while also well caring for our children after the fact. As mentioned, it's not an either/or equation.
For the record, my list above isn't all inclusive. There are other situations that warrant the choice too.
What if they financially can't care for the child after having it and the child has multiple special needs? Are you gonna vote for whats right this election for folks thinking about those situations?
Indeed. That said, I personally think there should be exceptions/alternatives for health of mother, rape, etc., outside the control of the mother.
