U.S. judge blocks enforcement of near-total abortion ban in Texas

The woman can't say "doc I'm depressed...abort the baby". But yes, even under Texas law the baby in your picture would be able to be aborted.

 

Ahhhh! But what constitutes a “medical emergency” and who decides? Let us say a woman develops idiopathic cardiomyopathy during pregnancy - that pregnancy could then cost her life but do we hold off until her heart fails completely or do we act early in the hope that the cardiomyopathy will reverse?

 

Curious though. Accidents happen all the time. Would you suggest these people be killed now, lest spare their loved ones the heart ache of being alive?

 

That is a DEFLECTION because you CANNOT answer these questions.

Now let's examine the IMPLICATIONS of FORCING a woman to bear not only an UNWANTED child but in some cases a HANDICAPED child.

WHO is going to PAY her MEDICAL COSTS for this UNWANTED pregnancy?

WHO is going to PAY for the MEDICAL COSTS of giving birth?

WHO is going to PAY for the CHILDCARE since YOU have FORCED her to INCREASE her cost of LIVING EXPENSES?

WHO is going to PAY for the ADDITIONAL SCHOOLS that will be NEEDED for all of these MILLIONS of additional UNWANTED children?

By FORCING women to have MILLIONS of UNWANTED children YOU are IMPOSING a BURDEN on TAXPAYERS.

WHY do YOU want to impose HIGHER TAXES to cover the costs of those UNWANTED children?

If YOU don't RAISE taxes for their HEALTH and EDUCTION you WILL have to RAISE TAXES to pay for COPS, COURTS and PRISONS instead.

Either way YOU are INCREASING the TAX BURDEN by FORCING women to bring UNWANTED children into this world WITHOUT adequate means to support them.

Stop with the asinine DEFLECTIONS and face up to the CONSEQUENCES of YOUR ACTIONS.

Because if YOU do NOT do it NOW you WILL do it in the FUTURE when you NO longer have any other options left.

FACTS matter!

 

I answered the question and the followed it with an example as to where we are currently spending the same amount of resources or more.

Lol.

See this is why this is getting tiresome. I answered the question, and you didn't like the answer so now you are saying I didn't answer the question. Yes I would be fine with the government increasing spending on raising Americans born in America rather then taking on other nation's problems.

 

So you are happy to pay significantly more in tax per year? After all this is an extra half million babies per year that will need financial support, housing and schooling until they are at least 15 years old.

Then comes the question of what to do with the children who cannot be placed.

immigrants can usually support themselves after a short time - babies not so much which is why we saw the “baby farms” boom in the 19th century the farms would take the infants in and collect the money but bury them shortly afterward

 

I think I'm making the case of shifting resources.

 

Translation “don’t have an answer”

 

Are you? Again it seems you have not done the math here.

 

The. Government.

yay!

 

WRONG!

YOU are DEFLECTING to something that is OFF TOPIC.

That is called DERAILING a thread.

STICK to the TOPIC and address the QUESTIONS related to the TOPIC.

HOW are YOU going to PAY for the COSTS incurred by FORCING women to bear MILLIONS of UNWANTED children?

 

Oh I think I have and I am. For those babies not adopted, the government would help with socialized programs. Spending American tax money on Americans. yay!

 

Shifting the spending from something I deem unnecessary and using said money to spend on Americans is NOT derailing. It's answering your question.

 

So YOU are in FAVOR of RAISING taxes by BILLIONS of dollars for all of those MILLIONS of UNWANTED children you are IMPOSING on taxpayers?

Sad!

 

Shifting. I am clearly saying the word shifting. If you continue to clearly misconstrue my posts I'm going to have to consider that trolling.

 

"Shifting" what EXACTLY?

Be EXPLICIT if YOU do NOT want your own posts to be "misconstrued".

STATE your POSITION on EXACTLY how YOU intend to PAY for the massive BURDEN of MILLIONS of UNWANTED children being born?

 

The "Karl rove voter" has been a total disaster for the GOP.

Forcing all drug addicted whores to take each and every pregnancy to term does what....

1. Puts kids in public schools who disrupt and prevent others from learning
2. Costs the taxpayer $2-$25 million depending on how many times the kid is let out early
3. Creates a future block of all Dem voters
4. Vastly increases crime and lowers public intelligence

I showed a Karl rove voter the video of the cruise missile hitting the pentagon on 911, still available on dailymotion.com. He agreed that was a cruise missile. Then he said "Bush doesn't know." I asked how W could possibly not know. He responded that W was such a wonderful patriotic American, he must have been deceived. Tennis star John McEnroe was not available for the punch line....

 

I stated that we should be cutting back on flooding in illegals and their problems and instead use the fund to expand social services to support orphaned children. Should absolutely NOBODY in the family/extended family want to take on the responsibility. That sounds morally responsible and placing Americans first.

 

That is a DEFLECTION that does NOT answer the QUESTION you were asked.

Illegal immigration is an ATTEMPT to DERAIL this thread.

The TOPIC is the banning of Abortions.

These are NOT "orphaned children".

They are UNWANTED children.

Are YOU proposing to add MILLIONS of UNWANTED children to ORPHANAGES that do NOT exist?

WHO will PAY for those NEW orphanages?

HOW much will TAXES have to be INCREASED for those ORPHANAGES?

WHO will pay for the HEALTHCARE for those children?

WHO will pay for the SCHOOLS and TEACHERS for those children?

Do YOU have any IDEA how much of an additional TAX BURDEN you are ADVOCATING?

 

Firstly, it is not a deflection. Again I will mention that I submit that the funds currently allocated to helping pay for illegals and immigration expansion be swapped into helping out AMERICANS born in AMERICA.
Secondly, you are assuming that every child would not be cared for by their extended family. That's a lousy assumption.
Third. Even if the burden of more taxes is at play, it's the right thing to do. Placing American welfare ahead of immigration expansion.

We need to increase our population. We are spending money to increase our population. I would much rather we did so by simply NOT KILLING Americans.

This is not a deflection. You asked me where would I get the funds. I've answered this question now three times. I now am assuming you are trolling me.

 

YOU are PRETENDING that YOU can MAGICALLY stop IMMIGRATION while IGNORING the FACT that NOT even YOUR biggest *LOSER* could make that happen.

If you CONTINUE to use that asinine DEFLECTION I am assuming that YOU are intentionally DERAILING this thread.

Since this thread is NOT about magical thinking but instead the FACT that BANNING abortions will mean MILLIONS of UNWANTED children NEEDING a place to LIVE, people to RAISE and EDUCATE them and HEALTHCARE when they need it that is going to place an ADDITIONAL burden on TAXPAYERS.

The REASON these children are UNWANTED is because the women concerned CANNOT AFFORD to RAISE them.

So how HIGH are YOU prepared to INCREASE TAXES in order to PAY for all of these UNWANTED children that YOU want to IMPOSE on TAXPAYERS like myself?

 

I would defer funds to cover the cost. Biden wants to increase the population, this is where it can come from. This convo is over. I've answered this now 4 times.

Cheers

 

Just for kicks I'll ask you to show proof that anyone said a fetus wasn't alive.

I know, I won't see any proof of that whatsoever.....and I haven't....it's been carefully avoided

 

Did you know that if you "defer" funds they have to come from somewhere? "Defer doesn't mean "appear by magic".

So do Anti-Choicers......LOTS more people to pay for

 

Yes I know you know it's alive. But to you it's just "tissue" or a tumor. Or some other insignificant thing. Disregarding that it's a human being at the start of its growth to a full fledged adult. Something that nothing you wish to compare it too would have the ability to become.