Well, IF she represents how the 1%ers are parenting, it is certainly better than how the liberals encourage the poor to parent. They encourage them to off their own children! Now, that is real parenting isn't it--just get rid of the little bugger.
Is the "greater good" so important that we kill the unborn to advance it?
Truthfully, Gregory, it would be for the greater good if a third or more of the world population were eliminated! You surely agree with that. There are just too many of us. But would you advocate firing squads to reach that objective?
How would taking out one third of the world population be any different than killing life in the womb?
The one difference that comes to mind is that at least the one third could fight back!
Gregory, you do not strike me as a monster! Yet, if you believe that we should "give incentives for people to abort," well, that is monsterous thinking! Bad enough we have given "permission" to abort. Would you wish to set the stage for planned conception, and then aborting to collect "incentives"!
But, you perhaps think that preferable to the current trend, that is, to have more babies to collect more welfare? Pay to abort rather than pay to reproduce?
I base my proposition on a small scale experiment done in the Netherlands. The one city wanted to reduce it's drug problems so what it set out to do was pay everyone who had a history of drug addiction a small fee in exchange they would take surgery to make them sterile and it had huge success the drug related crime rate went down in a big way. What I am suggesting is to go a little bit further with the idea, let's say everyone in america that aborts their child were to get their income tax reduced by 3% for a period of four years and were paid $10,000 for their trouble or if they were under the age of 21 they could get their taxes reduced by 4.25% and either paid $15,000 or get the same amount of money in college tuition.
I understand that people might strongly object to this and view whoever says it as less than human but it is more humane than the alternative the Chinese invented to solve overpopulation. What other possible way could we reduce over population? My way is completely humane, voluntary, and based in strongly capitalistic ideals compared to China which makes it illegal to have more than one kid and forces you to abort if you don't comply. If there was a better solution I'd like to think I would have come up with it. Overpopulation is a real problem and it's dest...
I base my proposition on a small scale experiment done in the Netherlands. The one city wanted to reduce it's drug problems so what it set out to do was pay everyone who had a history of drug addiction a small fee in exchange they would take surgery to make them sterile and it had huge success the drug related crime rate went down in a big way. What I am suggesting is to go a little bit further with the idea, let's say everyone in america that aborts their child were to get their income tax reduced by 3% for a period of four years and were paid $10,000 for their trouble or if they were under the age of 21 they could get their taxes reduced by 4.25% and either paid $15,000 or get the same amount of money in college tuition.
I understand that people might strongly object to this and view whoever says it as less than human but it is more humane than the alternative the Chinese invented to solve overpopulation. What other possible way could we reduce over population? My way is completely humane, voluntary, and based in strongly capitalistic ideals compared to China which makes it illegal to have more than one kid and forces you to abort if you don't comply. If there was a better solution I'd like to think I would have come up with it. Overpopulation is a real problem and it's destroying our environment and diminishing our resources so it's making everything more scarce and as you said it's either pay for a cheap abortion now or an expensive prison and welfare system later.
What do you mean "by planned conception, and then aborting to collect incentives".
By planned conception, I mean the same people(on welfare) having more children to collect more money, would jump at the chance to become pregnant and abort and collect money. They could have the money and not even have to raise the kids!
I understand overpopulation is a very, very real problem. I just don't like the approach you suggest. Killing innocent life is unacceptable. There is NO way that your plan could be considered "humane."
Why don't we just kill everyone as they turn fifty years old? Wouldn't that solve our problem? At least those people would have a fighting chance. The unborn have no chance. How about requiring everyone on any kind of public assistance to be sterilized first? It would, at least, be a choice (of sorts), and better than outright killing the unborn. Perhaps a few kids might starve, but it wouldn't be the wholeslaughter of innocents as we have legalized now. We could eliminate all criminals on their third time conviction, hey? Now, I am really 'trash talking," but my solutions for population control are more humane than yours!
But I realize it is much easier to kill little creatures as opposed to fifty year olds and requiring personal responsibility.
A fetus isn't even a human being there are significant differences that abortion can't be considered murder. Your idea is less ethical than mine because a fetus lacks sentience while while a living human does. as for your concerns that is a better outcome than letting them have kids who would be more expensive for the taxpayer.
I don't know, the Jesus freaks in the south are pretty bad. I will admit the moderate libertarian Ron Paul types I disagree with but I at least I know they mean well and I can debate them in a civil manner.
Why, they have science backing up what they believe. The only people who don't believe in global climate change are the corporations who don't want to pay the cost of taking care of our planet.
I don't believe I ever saw limitations on carbon emissions from jokes. If they did we could pay off the deficit with all the fines we would have to distribute to congress.
Red states give more money to charity than blue states, according to a new study on Monday.
The eight states with residents who gave the highest share of their income to charity supported Sen. John McCain in 2008, while the seven states with the least generous residents went for President Barack Obama, the Chronicle of Philanthropy found in its new survey of tax data from the IRS for 2008.
1. Connecticut - $43,173 - Blue 2. New Jersey - $40,427 - Blue 3. Massachusetts - $39,815 - Blue 4. Maryland - $37,331 - Blue 5. New York - $36,574 - Blue 6. New Hampshire - $34,702 - Red 7. Minnesota - $34,443 - Blue 8. Colorado - $34,283 - Red 9. California - $33,749 - Blue 10. Illinois - $33,690 - Blue
Bottom Ten States, per capita income:
41. Kentucky - $26,252 - Red 42. South Carolina - $26,132 - Red 43. Louisiana - $26,100 - Red 44. Montana - $25,920 - Red 45. Idaho - $25,911 - Red 46. New Mexico - $25,541 - Blue 47. Utah - $24,977 - Red 48. West Virginia - $24,379 - Red 49. Arkansas - $24,289 - Red 50. Mississippi - $23,448 - Red
Just so the maid keeps her son out of dresses and high heels.
Truthfully, Gregory, it would be for the greater good if a third or more of the world population were eliminated! You surely agree with that. There are just too many of us. But would you advocate firing squads to reach that objective?
How would taking out one third of the world population be any different than killing life in the womb?
The one difference that comes to mind is that at least the one third could fight back!
But, you perhaps think that preferable to the current trend, that is, to have more babies to collect more welfare? Pay to abort rather than pay to reproduce?
Heaven help us!
I understand that people might strongly object to this and view whoever says it as less than human but it is more humane than the alternative the Chinese invented to solve overpopulation. What other possible way could we reduce over population? My way is completely humane, voluntary, and based in strongly capitalistic ideals compared to China which makes it illegal to have more than one kid and forces you to abort if you don't comply. If there was a better solution I'd like to think I would have come up with it. Overpopulation is a real problem and it's dest...
I understand that people might strongly object to this and view whoever says it as less than human but it is more humane than the alternative the Chinese invented to solve overpopulation. What other possible way could we reduce over population? My way is completely humane, voluntary, and based in strongly capitalistic ideals compared to China which makes it illegal to have more than one kid and forces you to abort if you don't comply. If there was a better solution I'd like to think I would have come up with it. Overpopulation is a real problem and it's destroying our environment and diminishing our resources so it's making everything more scarce and as you said it's either pay for a cheap abortion now or an expensive prison and welfare system later.
What do you mean "by planned conception, and then aborting to collect incentives".
I understand overpopulation is a very, very real problem. I just don't like the approach you suggest. Killing innocent life is unacceptable. There is NO way that your plan could be considered "humane."
Why don't we just kill everyone as they turn fifty years old? Wouldn't that solve our problem? At least those people would have a fighting chance. The unborn have no chance. How about requiring everyone on any kind of public assistance to be sterilized first? It would, at least, be a choice (of sorts), and better than outright killing the unborn. Perhaps a few kids might starve, but it wouldn't be the wholeslaughter of innocents as we have legalized now. We could eliminate all criminals on their third time conviction, hey? Now, I am really 'trash talking," but my solutions for population control are more humane than yours!
But I realize it is much easier to kill little creatures as opposed to fifty year olds and requiring personal responsibility.
Study: Red states more charitable
By MACKENZIE WEINGER | 8/20/12 12:20 PM EDT
Red states give more money to charity than blue states, according to a new study on Monday.
The eight states with residents who gave the highest share of their income to charity supported Sen. John McCain in 2008, while the seven states with the least generous residents went for President Barack Obama, the Chronicle of Philanthropy found in its new survey of tax data from the IRS for 2008.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/...
Average per capita income:
Blue States - $33,968
Red States - $28,686
Top Ten States, per capita income:
1. Connecticut - $43,173 - Blue
2. New Jersey - $40,427 - Blue
3. Massachusetts - $39,815 - Blue
4. Maryland - $37,331 - Blue
5. New York - $36,574 - Blue
6. New Hampshire - $34,702 - Red
7. Minnesota - $34,443 - Blue
8. Colorado - $34,283 - Red
9. California - $33,749 - Blue
10. Illinois - $33,690 - Blue
Bottom Ten States, per capita income:
41. Kentucky - $26,252 - Red
42. South Carolina - $26,132 - Red
43. Louisiana - $26,100 - Red
44. Montana - $25,920 - Red
45. Idaho - $25,911 - Red
46. New Mexico - $25,541 - Blue
47. Utah - $24,977 - Red
48. West Virginia - $24,379 - Red
49. Arkansas - $24,289 - Red
50. Mississippi - $23,448 - Red