|
Izzy
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 16 Oct 2004 Posts: 883 Location: Earth
|
I Wonder Why!
Posted: 10-26-04 06:29am
|
|
|
|
Why dosnt some organization (its the
governments job but arnt doing it) get a
charity going where women and young girls
can come for financial help and emotional
support when they become pregnant and
considering abortion, why dont christian
churches inc r catholic not have a charity
where they do this. We bang on and on
about abortion yet we never do any real
good in these areas.
I would imagine its money worries and
emotional problems that is the major
reasons why women get scared into having
abortions.
If we tackeled these problems surely it
would help prevent at least one or two
abortions.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
aanifant
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 17 Aug 2004 Posts: 101 Location: Galway
|
Posted: 10-26-04 07:03am
|
|
|
|
|
Because federal money towards unmarried
women means women can survive without a
husband therefore the republican start
wetting themselves because traditional
family is moot.
I thikn all single mothers should receive
gov aid..Oh yeah...And can still have an
abortion if they choose
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
oopoopoop
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Mar 2004 Posts: 1512 Location: ,
Thanks: 78
Thanked:5
|
Posted: 10-26-04 07:32am
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree with you on the government aid,
aa -- there is no such thing as government
money, only taxpayers money. And I don't
want to be paying to support someone
because they got pregnant and didn't want
to have an abortion. That was their
choice, they should rely on their family
and friends if they need charity, not on
my hard-earned income. I need it to buy
cat food.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
aanifant
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 17 Aug 2004 Posts: 101 Location: Galway
|
Posted: 10-26-04 07:42am
|
|
|
|
|
I do agree about the taxpayers money but
there has to be some other alternative to
the tradtional family. Then single
mothers should join communes with
cooperative caring and combing of
resources. There is no way a woman can
have a child on her own and care for it
without struggling trmendously. Then they
are driven into prositution, etc..And I
don't think under the circumstances now
women can always afford abortions or reach
doctors/clinics who will perform them
without paying more money for transport.
I would rather pay taxes that go towards
helping people then where the majority go
now--towards military funds etc. But if
there wasn't such a stigma against
abortions there would be alot less
struggling, unhappy women with unwanted
babies anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Izzy
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 16 Oct 2004 Posts: 883 Location: Earth
|
Posted: 10-26-04 10:29am
|
|
|
|
|
Poo
"i disagree with you on the government
aid, aa -- there is no such thing as
government money, only taxpayers money.
And I don't want to be paying to support
someone because they got pregnant and
didn't want to have an abortion."
correct me if I am wrong, but I know I am
well informed, that the uk where your from
gives "tax payers money" - (around 75% of
which oppose abortion in certain areas or
all) to fund abortions. So do I take it
your infavour of gov using tax payers
money in order to kill unborn children
rather than to help women who may keep the
child if she could have the same money.
I understand that the uk gov has decided
or is considering giving tax relief and
credit to single parent families and
giving them houses too in order to
increase the population that has be
desimated since the introduction of
abortion by liberal democrat sir david
steel who now himself is lobbying
goverment to change the laws.
I guess you wont be voting for mr blair -
elections are due in uk arnt they?
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
oopoopoop
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Mar 2004 Posts: 1512 Location: ,
Thanks: 78
Thanked:5
|
Posted: 10-26-04 12:47pm
|
|
|
|
|
| izzy
wrote: | | so do I take it your
infavour of gov using tax payers money in
order to kill unborn children rather than
to help women who may keep the child if
she could have the same money.
|
right - you show me how many women with
unwanted pregnancies would keep the kid if
all they would ever get is the £250 or so
it costs to have an abortion -- I mean, no
child benefit, no tax credits, and had to
pay for all the schooling and healthcare
themselves.
Actually, how many people would actually
have a kid at all if they had to actually
pay for what it costs? No, definitely --
abortion is much the better economic
decision. Particularly if you reckon that
a lot of the aborted ones would also
either have serious medical problems,
require full time care if they lived, or
become drug addicts, criminals and
eventually trainwreck single parents as
well. Most of them would probably never
contribute their fair share in taxes.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Izzy
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 16 Oct 2004 Posts: 883 Location: Earth
|
Posted: 10-26-04 13:46pm
|
|
|
|
|
Oh well, there you go then!
man a lot of people would give there right
arm for $250 (i doubt its as cheep as
that) esp the poor who could even sell the
child on the net afterwards if they wanted
to.
Poo what have you contributed to
society... A great novel, a life saving
cure, a great theological contribution,
setup a charity, developed a new invention
if you have not done one of these I think
you should be terminated! It would be
much wiser to educate another human being
that could take your place
|
|
|
|
|
 |
sandyallen
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 02 Feb 2004 Posts: 4580
Thanks: 1
Thanked:0
|
Posted: 10-26-04 17:48pm
|
|
|
|
|
Izzy, I can sure see that you are not very
experienced in the real world! A lot of
this welfare money that is supposed to go
to the children, never gets to the
children, most(key word, most, I did not
say all) of the money goes to the mother's
and the father's to party, and yes, this
money comes from people like myself that
pay taxes. Parents in the u.S.A. Do get
a tax break, if they are working.
Abortion counseling is available.
Sincerely,
sandy
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
aanifant
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 17 Aug 2004 Posts: 101 Location: Galway
|
Posted: 10-27-04 06:56am
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, government subsidized abortion are a
brilliant idea. Izzy you even admitted
that people cant take care of their born
children and often they do sell them, well
girls, to pornographers and into
prostituiton. How the f is that a better
decision than abortion?? I suppose
they're girls so they are expendable
according to the catholic church.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Izzy
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 16 Oct 2004 Posts: 883 Location: Earth
|
Posted: 10-27-04 10:43am
|
|
|
|
|
"izzy, I can sure see that you are not
very experienced in the real world! A lot
of this welfare money that is supposed to
go to the children, never gets to the
children, most(key word, most, I did not
say all) of the money goes to the mother's
and the father's to party"
wow the most compeling reason for abortion
yet!
"izzy you even admitted that people cant
take care of their born children and often
they do sell them, well girls, to
pornographers and into prostituiton. How
the f is that a better decision than
abortion??"
would you rather die because your mother
cant support you or be a prostitute or a
porn star?
Die?
Well thats your choice - who are you to
make that choice for britny spears? Or an
unborn person?
"i suppose they're girls so they are
expendable according to the catholic
church."
ya see, sly remarks - then people accuse
us of being an aggresive fudemental
religious extreemist - we are only
defending our faith, suppose after a while
you realise they only do it to get a rise
so I wont even relpy to this absurdity!
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
2ferano
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 23 Dec 2003 Posts: 3717
|
Posted: 10-28-04 14:03pm
|
|
|
|
|
I am not knocking on your post because you
are right it is a great idea, and people
complain and judge yet do nothing. Well,
yeah they try to get rid of abortion,
which is just ignorant, but they don't
actually do anything helpful.
But I do have to say that yes, some women
have abortions because of
financial/emotional. But that is just
some. And some women just simply do not
want children. And no, that doesnt' mean
that they just shouldn't have sex. Even
married women don't want kids people. Bc
is not 100% effective and things happen.
There are several other reasons for
abortion also that we cannot forget about.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
2ferano
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 23 Dec 2003 Posts: 3717
|
Posted: 10-28-04 14:06pm
|
|
|
|
|
Well, now that I have read this whole
thread.
Whatever girl.
First, learn how to spell please.
Poopooopooo is very intelligent and she is
right. It would cost us taxpayers a lot
less for a woman who doesn't want a child
to have an abortion (even if tax money
covers it) then for us to support her and
her child for the next 18 years. And
even that is usually a repeating cycle
which costs us even more.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
PattyV
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 01 May 2004 Posts: 1103 Location: Chicago area
|
Posted: 10-29-04 18:30pm
|
|
|
|
|
Some doctors will perform an abortion and
call it a "d and c" so they will get paid
by insurance or medicaid.It is a game of
semantics.It is correct that an abortion
costs less than 18 years of supporting a
child,but I bet that many women would
still not have the abortion,free or
not.Some women just accept an unwanted
pregnancy as their cost for having sex.I'm
not saying that they are right or wrong,
but if you cannot afford to raise the
child,you need to think of that before the
fact.Birth control is available at little
to no cost at clinics and other
programs.It just has to be used and used
correctly(yes,i know that no method is
100%).It boggles my mind to hear some of
the women say that birth control is too
much of a hassle-and 5 kids are not??I
worked at a community clinic and was
amazed at the number of women who would
come for their 6 week post partum check
and be pregnant again.And not be
concerned!Okay,i'll stop before I go off
on a tear.Patty
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
2ferano
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 23 Dec 2003 Posts: 3717
|
Posted: 10-30-04 13:29pm
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, I am not saying that every unwanted or
unplanned pregnancy needs to end in
abortion. I am not promoting abortion
either. I am simply saying that if a
woman wants an abortion, I would much
rather have my tax money go to her
abortion than to go to paying for her to
sit on her ass for the next 18 years
collecting food stamps, free health
insurance, free college tuition, cash
assistance, etc.
Yes, idealy there would be no unwanted
pregnancies and I also get very angry with
women who cannot be bothered by birth
control and then have an abortion every
time they get pregnant. It is so
immature, irresponsible and immoral.
"oh, I don't want to go on bc because I
will get fat" grrrrrrr.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Izzy
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 16 Oct 2004 Posts: 883 Location: Earth
|
Posted: 11-12-04 08:19am
|
|
|
|
|
Well why dont you abort the woman also?
Then you wont have to pay any taxes for
her, including the taxes you dont want to
give her now?
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Izzy
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 16 Oct 2004 Posts: 883 Location: Earth
|
Posted: 11-12-04 08:37am
|
|
|
|
|
"i also get very angry with women who
cannot be bothered by birth control and
then have an abortion every time they get
pregnant. It is so immature,
irresponsible and immoral."
couple of questions
1.Why is it immature, irresponsible and
most importantly immoral?
2. How is it not immature, irresponsible
and most importantly immoral to have an
abortion after using birth control, does
birth conrol somehow take away all
responsibility for your actions?
3. If abortion does not kill "anything"
as you so adamantly declare.... How is
abortion used as a form of birth control
immoral?
4. Why do you admonish women who abort
because they are pregnant with a "blob of
cells" due to not using birth control and
then support women who abort because they
are pregnant with a "blob of cells" who's
birth control has failed?
If its becuase the pregnancy is their
fault, who's fault is the other.... The
birth control company?
5. What other reason (apart from saving
money) is there for using birth control
instead of abortion if nothing is killed
by having an abortion.
If using birth control deminishes your
responsibility for conception of the child
and therefor your responsiblity to that
child and therefore your desire to not
have that child resulting in you killing
that child.... Havent you just proved
that birth control is the reason you want
abortion because in effect you want to use
it as a means of birth control in the
event you concieve a child?
|
|
|
|
|