There are about a hundred third trimester abortions performed in the U.S. every year and you believe the physicians performing them are what? Sociopaths?

There is obviously a good-faith medical reason for them.

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

You say it is an arbitrary and meaningless term and yet you defined it perfectly

---

I didn't define it at all, I simply argued using any POTENTIAL definition most people including yourself would use. However you define "personhood", it almost certainly is in logical conflict with your arguments for abortion.

Quote:

---

but then say it's illogical to use the definition when making decisions when that is exactly what the medical community already does with their right to refuse medical intervention.

---

There is no medical or scientific definition of "personhood", that's the point.

Quote:

---

You also miss the important distinction that the aborted never had personhood, and may never have it due to common and natural causes.

---

Millions of children around the world have conditions that deprive them of ever possessing what you would likely consider to be "personhood". I've seen adult patients who have literally never had a single conscious thought or moment of self awareness in their lives. Can we kill them? Should we?

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

It's funny how Republicans have somehow convinced people they care about people when they know, and freely admit, the only people that will be truly restricted by their big government policies will be those without means and who can least afford to have children. The common response to this fact being "dump the unwanted children into the foster care system" where our Republican-controlled government (whom Republican's always say 'can't do anything right') proves their supposition, once again, by underfunding and mismanaging to create an abhorrent system that delivers the poorest quality of life, and in extreme cases, a miserable death. It's all about illogical arguments made in bad faith to maintain one's perceived identity.

---

This is a common criticism of the pro-life movement that is 100% valid, because it's true. "Pro-life" is a bull**** term.

No one should ever take Republicans seriously when they say they are pro-life, because they do absolutely nothing when it comes to actually lowering abortion demand, and then helping unwanted children born to impoverished mothers. They will vote all of it down every single time, saying either it's "not muh problem" or "not enough money." Restricting abortion only applies to those who lack means to travel to get an abortion. That is why these companies are providing this as a benefit. If Republicans want an abortion, they will get one, no questions asked. Just like they always have.

Our foster system is such a colossal embarrassment. It's horribly underfunded, crowded, and broken. They refuse to fund or reform the system. Kids born to broken homes and mothers living in severe poverty NEED help to raise their kids and provide for them, and red states wont lift a finger to accommodate this increased demand. They do not care. Once the baby is born, their job is done. They are completely uninterested in working to make sure these children have their basic needs.

Every criticism George Carlin made about pro-life Republicans in the 1990s was 100% correct.

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

There are about a hundred third trimester abortions performed in the U.S. every year and you believe the physicians performing them are what? Sociopaths?

---

Some of them I'm sure are, but that says more about the known high percentage of sociopaths in surgical medical specialties relative to the general population. And believe it or not, most sociopaths don't kill people or even desire to.

Most have just simply accepted a reality that leads to reprehensible actions. Most people who do bad things that are at least temporarily socially acceptable aren't bad people, at least not in the sense you mean.

All third trimester abortions are performed against medical guidance in the scenarios where they are done however. A c section is always the better option medically speaking.

Quote:

---

There is obviously a good-faith medical reason for them.

---

You are naive if you believe this

Everything that [makes] them a person is absent except for the most basic underlying biological reality.

That's a pretty good definition for our use and one I'm sure many medical professional use to refuse medical intervention.

damiond said:

---

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2022/05/04/npr-companies-abortion-levis-amazon-citigroup

A benefit that murders a child. disgusting. It should be outlawed.

---

And it won't be. States cannot restrict interstate travel. However with this politically charged Supreme Court, you can never count anything out.

We warned about this. Abortion bans don't reduce demand, they just bottleneck it in places where it's legal and increase demand for illegal abortions. And once Roe is slapped down, it's going to be an absolute **** storm of chaos.

The GOP did this. They only have themselves to blame. Companies will continue to offer this benefit, and abortion demand will not change. It will probably only go up.

larry culpepper said:

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

It's funny how Republicans have somehow convinced people they care about people when they know, and freely admit, the only people that will be truly restricted by their big government policies will be those without means and who can least afford to have children. The common response to this fact being "dump the unwanted children into the foster care system" where our Republican-controlled government (whom Republican's always say 'can't do anything right') proves their supposition, once again, by underfunding and mismanaging to create an abhorrent system that delivers the poorest quality of life, and in extreme cases, a miserable death. It's all about illogical arguments made in bad faith to maintain one's perceived identity.

---

This is a common criticism of the pro-life movement that is 100% valid, because it's true. "Pro-life" is a bull**** term.

No one should ever take Republicans seriously when they say they are pro-life, because they do absolutely nothing when it comes to actually lowering abortion demand, and then helping unwanted children born to impoverished mothers. They will vote all of it down every single time, saying either it's "not muh problem" or "not enough money." Restricting abortion only applies to those who lack means to travel to get an abortion. That is why these companies are providing this as a benefit. If Republicans want an abortion, they will get one, no questions asked. Just like they always have.

Our foster system is such a colossal embarrassment. It's horribly underfunded, crowded, and broken. They refuse to fund or reform the system. Kids born to broken homes and mothers living in severe poverty NEED help to raise their kids and provide for them, and red states wont lift a finger to accommodate this increased demand. They do not care. Once the baby is born, their job is done. They are completely uninterested in working to make sure these children have their basic needs.

Every criticism George Carlin made about pro-life Republicans in the 1990s was 100% correct.

---

But this all amounts to faults with republicans and emotional pleading, not an actual defense of abortion. Which is fine, unless it's actually used to defend abortion (or more primarily, attack the opposition on that basis).

Sure many republicans are hypocrites, and yes sex Ed/access to contraception needs to be optimized, and yes the foster care system is a poor one. NONE of that speaks in any way to whether abortion, and particularly later term abortions, is morally defensible.

The reality is these attacks, while many are valid, usually represent an attempt to avoid actually having to defend abortion.

Quote:

---

The clothing brand Levi Strauss & Co. said in a statement on Wednesday that employees could get reimbursed for travel expenses for health care services not available in the state where they live, including abortions, through the company's benefits plan. Part-time hourly workers could also seek reimbursement

---

Could is the key word here. Generally these benefits only apply to medically necessary procedures that are not available in your work location. Are we sure 3rd trimester "i don't want this baby" travel is going to be covered?

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

Everything that [makes] them a person is absent except for the most basic underlying biological reality.

That's a pretty good definition for our use and one I'm sure many medical professional use to refuse medical intervention.

---

But that's not a definition, it simply means that there is no longer any POSSIBLE definition apart from a purely biological one that would make that individual a person. It means that all the arbitrary definitions you could propose apart from that no longer apply. And that reality exists in many forms after birth, in situations in which most people would not be ok with killing as a matter of convenience.

Finally, allowing nature to take its course on a 97 year old with dementia is fundamentally different than aborting a 34 week old fetus.

larry culpepper said:

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

It's funny how Republicans have somehow convinced people they care about people when they know, and freely admit, the only people that will be truly restricted by their big government policies will be those without means and who can least afford to have children. The common response to this fact being "dump the unwanted children into the foster care system" where our Republican-controlled government (whom Republican's always say 'can't do anything right') proves their supposition, once again, by underfunding and mismanaging to create an abhorrent system that delivers the poorest quality of life, and in extreme cases, a miserable death. It's all about illogical arguments made in bad faith to maintain one's perceived identity.

---

This is a common criticism of the pro-life movement that is 100% valid, because it's true. "Pro-life" is a bull**** term.

No one should ever take Republicans seriously when they say they are pro-life, because they do absolutely nothing when it comes to actually lowering abortion demand, and then helping unwanted children born to impoverished mothers. They will vote all of it down every single time, saying either it's "not muh problem" or "not enough money." Restricting abortion only applies to those who lack means to travel to get an abortion. That is why these companies are providing this as a benefit. If Republicans want an abortion, they will get one, no questions asked. Just like they always have.

Our foster system is such a colossal embarrassment. It's horribly underfunded, crowded, and broken. They refuse to fund or reform the system. Kids born to broken homes and mothers living in severe poverty NEED help to raise their kids and provide for them, and red states wont lift a finger to accommodate this increased demand. They do not care. Once the baby is born, their job is done. They are completely uninterested in working to make sure these children have their basic needs.

Every criticism George Carlin made about pro-life Republicans in the 1990s was 100% correct.

---

complete lie but when has that ever stopped liberals.

Quote:

---

But this all amounts to faults with republicans and emotional pleading, not an actual defense of abortion. Which is fine, unless it's actually used to defend abortion (or more primarily, attack the opposition on that basis).

Sure many republicans are hypocrites, and yes sex Ed/access to contraception needs to be optimized, and yes the foster care system is a poor one. NONE of that speaks in any way to whether abortion, and particularly later term abortions, is morally defensible.

The reality is these attacks, while many are valid, usually represent an attempt to avoid actually having to defend abortion.

---

I guess it always comes back to the central point on whether abortion should be permissible, right? I'm at least glad you agree there are other issues in play here and how awful our foster system is. Seems like no one really cares about that.

my position is the mainstream one. In the early stages of pregnancy (<12 weeks, when over 90% of abortions actually happen), it is NOT a fully formed baby. It is intellectually dishonest to say a fertilized egg is the same as a fully formed baby. You CANNOT restrict a woman from seeking an abortion at this point. You just cant. It's her bodily autonomy. I do not care if that position offends people. I do not care if one's church/religion disagrees with it.

I have no defense for elective third trimester abortions.

It's a fine definition that describes the reality of these situations.

And the fact remains, the arguments to restrict the bodily autonomy of women during pregnancy is predicated on illogical assumption that personhood starts at conception. It's a position that people in the Dark Ages would not have accepted as they believed personhood came after the quickening.

Quote:

---

Abortion bans don't reduce demand

---

Well that's just silly, making something a crime always decreases the number of people willing to perform the action. And because a large number of women who currently seek abortion lack the resources to travel across state lines to get one, the choice then becomes commit a crime and risk my health or fess up to mom and dad (not wanting someone else to find out you're pregnant is the second leading reason women seek abortion according to women who have had them). If you don't believe that will reduce the number of people seeking abortions, just realize that goes against everything we know about crime everywhere in the world.

For example, people always say prohibition was stupid because it didn't decrease the number of people who drank. Now prohibition was stupid, but it absolutely DID reduce drinking nationally. And that was with a behavior that was essentially impossible to be caught doing if you were smart.

No it's not. They can say they care about kids all day long. Their actions contradict it.

They always vote down any funding that would go toward foster care, social programs for impoverished families, comprehensive sex ed, maternity leave, expanding medicaid. They wont budge an inch on this stuff. They think once abortion is banned, everything is sunshine and rainbows and their job is done.

Quote:

---

We find that alcohol consumption fell sharply at the beginning of Prohibition, to approximately 30 percent of its pre-Prohibition level. During the next several years, however, alcohol consumption increased sharply, to about 60-70 percent of its pre-Prohibition level.

---

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w3675/w3675.pdf

So if we follow the Prohibition model we will see a 30-40 percent reduction along with an increase in poverty and crime.

Inf said:

---

Finally, allowing nature to take its course on a 97 year old with dementia is fundamentally different than aborting a 34 week old fetus.

---

How? Why?
That being said ~80% of abortions occur within 9 weeks and ~93% of abortions occur before 13 weeks (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm) Is there a fundamental difference between a 34 week fetus and 13 week fetus?

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Quote:

---

Abortion bans don't reduce demand

---

Well that's just silly, making something a crime always decreases the number of people willing to perform the action. And because a large number of women who currently seek abortion lack the resources to travel across state lines to get one, the choice then becomes commit a crime and risk my health or fess up to mom and dad (not wanting someone else to find out you're pregnant is the second leading reason women seek abortion according to women who have had them). If you don't believe that will reduce the number of people seeking abortions, just realize that goes against everything we know about crime everywhere in the world.

For example, people always say prohibition was stupid because it didn't decrease the number of people who drank. Now prohibition was stupid, but it absolutely DID reduce drinking nationally. And that was with a behavior that was essentially impossible to be caught doing if you were smart.

---

And prohibition was a terrible policy that did way more harm than good, and the same can be said about abortion bans.

This goes beyond abortion too. These laws compromise legitimate reproductive healthcare for women because they severely restrict the care for women who may not even be seeking abortions. Example in this tweet.

In case you think abortion laws don’t matter: last week a pharmacist declined to fill a prescription for a patient of mine with an ectopic pregnancy citing SB8 restrictions.

The same medicine that saved my life in 2013 when I had my own ectopic pregnancy

1/4

— Natalie Crawford, MD (@ncrawfordmd) May 12, 2022

These laws are so short sighted. Abbott and the idiots who write these laws just dont know, or dont care, what effects they may have on pregnant women.

That fact that the certified doctor on the forum went strait for the red meat, third trimester abortions, rather than a more common abortion scenario, ectopic pregnancies (that occur in about 1 in 50 pregnancies) says so much about how our nation discusses the very intricate topic.

larry culpepper said:

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

It's funny how Republicans have somehow convinced people they care about people when they know, and freely admit, the only people that will be truly restricted by their big government policies will be those without means and who can least afford to have children. The common response to this fact being "dump the unwanted children into the foster care system" where our Republican-controlled government (whom Republican's always say 'can't do anything right') proves their supposition, once again, by underfunding and mismanaging to create an abhorrent system that delivers the poorest quality of life, and in extreme cases, a miserable death. It's all about illogical arguments made in bad faith to maintain one's perceived identity.

---

This is a common criticism of the pro-life movement that is 100% valid, because it's true. "Pro-life" is a bull**** term.

No one should ever take Republicans seriously when they say they are pro-life, because they do absolutely nothing when it comes to actually lowering abortion demand, and then helping unwanted children born to impoverished mothers. They will vote all of it down every single time, saying either it's "not muh problem" or "not enough money." Restricting abortion only applies to those who lack means to travel to get an abortion. That is why these companies are providing this as a benefit. If Republicans want an abortion, they will get one, no questions asked. Just like they always have.

Our foster system is such a colossal embarrassment. It's horribly underfunded, crowded, and broken. They refuse to fund or reform the system. Kids born to broken homes and mothers living in severe poverty NEED help to raise their kids and provide for them, and red states wont lift a finger to accommodate this increased demand. They do not care. Once the baby is born, their job is done. They are completely uninterested in working to make sure these children have their basic needs.

Every criticism George Carlin made about pro-life Republicans in the 1990s was 100% correct.

---

Being against killing your baby so you aren't inconvenienced doesn't imply some duty to pay for your decisions. HTH.

It will become a baby eventually though so to me that argument is mental gymnastics.

Overturning roe vs wade is actually very much needed to embrace more federalism and stop having every decision decided at the federal level. This will cool things off more.

Abortion being legal up to birth wouldn't make me move out of a state but it might make others move and vice versa for those that disagree with a states decision to restrict abortion heavily or entirely.

If you truly believe in body autonomy than you can't choose the abortion cutoff time. It should be appropriate all the time based on that logic.

larry culpepper said:

---

Quote:

---

But this all amounts to faults with republicans and emotional pleading, not an actual defense of abortion. Which is fine, unless it's actually used to defend abortion (or more primarily, attack the opposition on that basis).

Sure many republicans are hypocrites, and yes sex Ed/access to contraception needs to be optimized, and yes the foster care system is a poor one. NONE of that speaks in any way to whether abortion, and particularly later term abortions, is morally defensible.

The reality is these attacks, while many are valid, usually represent an attempt to avoid actually having to defend abortion.

---

I guess it always comes back to the central point on whether abortion should be permissible, right? I'm at least glad you agree there are other issues in play here and how awful our foster system is. Seems like no one really cares about that.

my position is the mainstream one. In the early stages of pregnancy (<12 weeks, when over 90% of abortions actually happen), it is NOT a fully formed baby. It is intellectually dishonest to say a fertilized egg is the same as a fully formed baby. You CANNOT restrict a woman from seeking an abortion at this point. You just cant. It's her bodily autonomy. I do not care if that position offends people. I do not care if one's church/religion disagrees with it.

I have no defense for elective third trimester abortions.

---

Of course an 8 week old fetus isn't the same thing as a baby. I maintain NOBODY actually believes that even if they say they do. If I know for a fact a baby is being murdered in the house across the street, there is very little I won't do to try and physically stop it. However he number of people breaking into abortion clinics, and in early stage abortions often just OB/GYN clinics, is exceedingly small. Like almost nobody is risking life and limb to stop abortion. Their actions prove they don't believe what they claim. Moreover, I'm not going to be the one to tell a 17 year old rape victim they can't have an abortion. Someone else can shoulder that.

I'm also very different from most who oppose most abortions because I'm not religious at all. I don't believe there is any objective universal law making abortion or anything else immoral in the way religious people do. I simply believe that a society that not just allows for but embraces and celebrates the killing of our offspring largely for convenience won't survive long term. It's a violation of our most basic biological drive and rapidly blurs necessary lines of social norms and subjective human worth, and the proof is in the pudding. We've gone from safe, legal and rare to shout your abortion in less than 30 years. More Americans support political violence today than they have at any point since the Civil War. We value being kind and preserving human life less and less. And I can't help but think contributing factor is this idea that if I get pregnant, I can just get rid of it with no consequence.

Are there instances where abortions are necessary, or should be allowed, early in pregnancy? I believe so yes. I do not believe the majority of abortions performed should be supported by codified US law. I think if we have decided this sort of social, western society we have constructed is the best way to pursue subjective happiness in an objectively meaningless universe, that behavior inhibits our attempt as a collective.

Any evidence these policies you mention actually work? There's arguments to be welfare has only made it worse over the decades.

larry culpepper said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Quote:

---

Abortion bans don't reduce demand

---

Well that's just silly, making something a crime always decreases the number of people willing to perform the action. And because a large number of women who currently seek abortion lack the resources to travel across state lines to get one, the choice then becomes commit a crime and risk my health or fess up to mom and dad (not wanting someone else to find out you're pregnant is the second leading reason women seek abortion according to women who have had them). If you don't believe that will reduce the number of people seeking abortions, just realize that goes against everything we know about crime everywhere in the world.

For example, people always say prohibition was stupid because it didn't decrease the number of people who drank. Now prohibition was stupid, but it absolutely DID reduce drinking nationally. And that was with a behavior that was essentially impossible to be caught doing if you were smart.

---

And prohibition was a terrible policy that did way more harm than good, and the same can be said about abortion bans.

This goes beyond abortion too. These laws compromise legitimate reproductive healthcare for women because they severely restrict the care for women who may not even be seeking abortions. Example in this tweet.

In case you think abortion laws don’t matter: last week a pharmacist declined to fill a prescription for a patient of mine with an ectopic pregnancy citing SB8 restrictions.

The same medicine that saved my life in 2013 when I had my own ectopic pregnancy

1/4

— Natalie Crawford, MD (@ncrawfordmd) May 12, 2022

These laws are so short sighted. Abbott and the idiots who write these laws just dont know, or dont care, what effects they may have on pregnant women.

---

But here's the thing, that pharmacist is going to be reported, lose their license and possibly face criminal prosecution. NOBODY, not even the most ardent pro lifer, who understands what an ectopic pregnancy is believes the women should die instead of ending the pregnancy. Most would argue it's not even the same moral argument because an ectopic pregnancy by definition is non-viable, it is going to "die" one way or another.

See? Posts like this completely miss the point. And prove my point. You can say "not my problem" all day but the fact is there is insanely higher demand for social services for underprivileged kids. Does this not bother you at all? Most of the time their moms are working long shifts for **** pay and cannot provide for all their kids.

"well maybe she shouldn't have had sex." Well she did and she has a baby. The baby needs to be fed and have basic needs provided for.

Do you think the foster care system needs more funding?

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

That fact that the certified doctor on the forum went strait for the red meat, third trimester abortions, rather than a more common abortion scenario, ectopic pregnancies (that occur in about 1 in 50 pregnancies) says so much about how our nation discusses the very intricate topic.

---

Keep reading

larry culpepper said:

---

Quote:

---

I have no defense for elective third trimester abortions.

---

---

You don't need one. It's a dishonest strawman argument used slander the pro-choice position. Abortion occurring after "viability" is a medical decision.

larry culpepper said:

---

See? Posts like this completely miss the point. And prove my point. You can say "not my problem" all day but the fact is there is insanely higher demand for social services for underprivileged kids. Does this not bother you at all? Most of the time their moms are working long shifts for **** pay and cannot provide for all their kids.

"well maybe she shouldn't have had sex." Well she did and she has a baby. The baby needs to be fed and have basic needs provided for.

Do you think the foster care system needs more funding?

---

I do think it's worthwhile to discuss the issue of personal responsibility though, particularly given that 95% of accidents on birth control are due to improper or inconsistent use. And nearly half of unwanted pregnancies occurred with the use of no artificial contraception. So even if we ignore that sex is a choice in and of itself, most unwanted pregnancies are not just bad luck.

But yes child care resources need more funding, and more charities (particularly religiously affiliated ones) should be expected to step up to the plate even more in states where abortion is banned.

larry culpepper said:

---

See? Posts like this completely miss the point. And prove my point. You can say "not my problem" all day but the fact is there is insanely higher demand for social services for underprivileged kids. Does this not bother you at all? Most of the time their moms are working long shifts for **** pay and cannot provide for all their kids.

"well maybe she shouldn't have had sex." Well she did and she has a baby. The baby needs to be fed and have basic needs provided for.

Do you think the foster care system needs more funding?

---

I think private charities need to be encouraged rather than disallowed if someone might see a crucifix or hear a prayer while getting their freebies.

For the most part, people need to take care of their responsibilities. If a woman has unprotected sex with someone who bails on them, the mom and dad need to accept the consequences of that decision. Sometimes one parent has to be compelled; that's OK.

I am not an abolitionist, so if someone terminates early on...say 1st trimester...that seems like a reasonable expectation. So there's prevention in the 1st place, there's the morning after pill, then there's the 1st trimester to not be inconvenienced.

Still, none of this makes any part of it my responsibility for someone else's decisions. And the government stepping in as the baby-daddy has only exacerbated the problem and destroyed the nuclear family in certain populations that were doing a whole lot better before the government stepped in.

larry culpepper said:

---

See? Posts like this completely miss the point. And prove my point. You can say "not my problem" all day but the fact is there is insanely higher demand for social services for underprivileged kids. Does this not bother you at all? Most of the time their moms are working long shifts for **** pay and cannot provide for all their kids.

"well maybe she shouldn't have had sex." Well she did and she has a baby. The baby needs to be fed and have basic needs provided for.

Do you think the foster care system needs more funding?

---

The foster care system totally needs more funding.

Sure that's fine. And a valid point. Though a completely separate issue. "Accident" babies happen all the time. It's a logical fallacy to dismiss a serious issue in this manner.

The demand is there and will increase. We can't just ignore it because in our opinion the woman wasn't responsible enough. Again, this goes back to my first post in this thread where I criticize pro lifers as not caring at all after the baby is born.

larry culpepper said:

---

Sure that's fine. And a valid point. Though a completely separate issue. "Accident" babies happen all the time. It's a logical fallacy to dismiss a serious issue in this manner.

The demand is there and will increase. We can't just ignore it because in our opinion the woman wasn't responsible enough. Again, this goes back to my first post in this thread where I criticize pro lifers as not caring at all after the baby is born.

---

We definitely shouldn't ignore it

I will say, in a rare defense of the religious right, religious charities are by far the largest contributors to child care assistance outside of the federal government.

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

It's funny how Republicans have somehow convinced people they care about people when they know, and freely admit, the only people that will be truly restricted by their big government policies will be those without means and who can least afford to have children. The common response to this fact being "dump the unwanted children into the foster care system" where our Republican-controlled government (whom Republican's always say 'can't do anything right') proves their supposition, once again, by underfunding and mismanaging to create an abhorrent system that delivers the poorest quality of life, and in extreme cases, a miserable death. It's all about illogical arguments made in bad faith to maintain one's perceived identity.

---

This is a common criticism of the pro-life movement that is 100% valid, because it's true. "Pro-life" is a bull**** term.

No one should ever take Republicans seriously when they say they are pro-life, because they do absolutely nothing when it comes to actually lowering abortion demand, and then helping unwanted children born to impoverished mothers. They will vote all of it down every single time, saying either it's "not muh problem" or "not enough money." Restricting abortion only applies to those who lack means to travel to get an abortion. That is why these companies are providing this as a benefit. If Republicans want an abortion, they will get one, no questions asked. Just like they always have.

Our foster system is such a colossal embarrassment. It's horribly underfunded, crowded, and broken. They refuse to fund or reform the system. Kids born to broken homes and mothers living in severe poverty NEED help to raise their kids and provide for them, and red states wont lift a finger to accommodate this increased demand. They do not care. Once the baby is born, their job is done. They are completely uninterested in working to make sure these children have their basic needs.

Every criticism George Carlin made about pro-life Republicans in the 1990s was 100% correct.

---

Being against killing your baby so you aren't inconvenienced doesn't imply some duty to pay for your decisions. HTH.

---

It isn't a baby it's a fetus HTH

Pepe SiIvia said:

---

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

Carolin_Gallego said:

---

It's funny how Republicans have somehow convinced people they care about people when they know, and freely admit, the only people that will be truly restricted by their big government policies will be those without means and who can least afford to have children. The common response to this fact being "dump the unwanted children into the foster care system" where our Republican-controlled government (whom Republican's always say 'can't do anything right') proves their supposition, once again, by underfunding and mismanaging to create an abhorrent system that delivers the poorest quality of life, and in extreme cases, a miserable death. It's all about illogical arguments made in bad faith to maintain one's perceived identity.

---

This is a common criticism of the pro-life movement that is 100% valid, because it's true. "Pro-life" is a bull**** term.

No one should ever take Republicans seriously when they say they are pro-life, because they do absolutely nothing when it comes to actually lowering abortion demand, and then helping unwanted children born to impoverished mothers. They will vote all of it down every single time, saying either it's "not muh problem" or "not enough money." Restricting abortion only applies to those who lack means to travel to get an abortion. That is why these companies are providing this as a benefit. If Republicans want an abortion, they will get one, no questions asked. Just like they always have.

Our foster system is such a colossal embarrassment. It's horribly underfunded, crowded, and broken. They refuse to fund or reform the system. Kids born to broken homes and mothers living in severe poverty NEED help to raise their kids and provide for them, and red states wont lift a finger to accommodate this increased demand. They do not care. Once the baby is born, their job is done. They are completely uninterested in working to make sure these children have their basic needs.

Every criticism George Carlin made about pro-life Republicans in the 1990s was 100% correct.

---

Being against killing your baby so you aren't inconvenienced doesn't imply some duty to pay for your decisions. HTH.

---

It isn't a baby it's a fetus HTH

---

wbt5845 said:

---

God owes Sodom and Gomorrah an apology.

---

No, they got what they deserved. Ours is coming.

wbt5845 said:

---

God owes Sodom and Gomorrah an apology.

---

This