Deleted
Joined: May 1, 2024 19:59:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2015 19:19:50 GMT -5
Technically speaking, one COULD build/create their own country if they wanted to. There is always the possibility of new volcanic islands...
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on May 25, 2015 19:23:38 GMT -5
Don't forget seasteading.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,366
Member is Online
|
Post by NastyWoman on May 25, 2015 23:18:40 GMT -5
Unless you are truly disabled, no one should be collecting any kind of welfare unless they are over 21, a U.S. Citizen and have worked a minimum of two years. Popping out babies should not qualify you for anything-period. That welfare should be for no longer than 2 years and 1 time only per citizen. Bingo. If you can't afford to raise them, don't have them. If you're a non-citizen, you can NEVER EVER collect welfare. that means I can stop paying taxes right? After all, why should I, a non- citizen, have to pay for anything that would , and I quote, NEVER EVER, be available to me should I need it? Or am I just supposed to kiss the ground SCP walks on and thank him that I am allowed to put money in the kitty should he or his ever need help?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 26, 2015 10:10:10 GMT -5
Bingo. If you can't afford to raise them, don't have them. If you're a non-citizen, you can NEVER EVER collect welfare. that means I can stop paying taxes right? After all, why should I, a non- citizen, have to pay for anything that would , and I quote, NEVER EVER, be available to me should I need it? Or am I just supposed to kiss the ground SCP walks on and thank him that I am allowed to put money in the kitty should he or his ever need help? Actually, unless or until the workforce participation rate reaches 80% with an unemployment rate of 5% or less, you shouldn't even be living or working here.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 26, 2015 10:15:37 GMT -5
Technically speaking, one COULD build/create their own country if they wanted to. There is always the possibility of new volcanic islands... This doesn't solve the problem. The suggestion of starting one's own gang- and hoping that one of the other bigger and more powerful gangs doesn't decide to take over your territory is not really an option that correctly answers the question: does an individual have a right to exist independent of permission from a gang? Can a person simply "be", and interact - or not interact - voluntarily with others? Or must a person obtain permission from the state to exist?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 26, 2015 10:17:22 GMT -5
if your are describing the WORLD as a prison and GOVERNMENTS as gangs, then YES. that is reality. you are stuck in this world, and you are lucky enough to be able to choose your government. many are not. so, choose, and stop whining about your choice. you were dealt a hand full of counters, Paul. don't bitch. play them. 100% true- anyone born now is in such a prison- all the land and resources were taken long ago and nobody has any rights to anything. If you want to survive you have to play by the rules- so you have to work a job- you can't just go out into the woods and build your own shelter, hunt for food, shit and howl at the moon. And who would want to?
I'd be happy I was born in this country- because sure as shit any one of us, had we been born into another culture, might be part of ISIS today. And we would think we were in the right. So pay your taxes and be happy you have that privilege to do so as a citizen in a free country.
Look, as far as gangs go- I was born into a pretty good one. The question I'm asking is a philosophical one- and one I realize has no practical "yes" answer- but the answer- philosophically, and morally simply cannot be anything other than "yes".
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,896
|
Post by happyhoix on May 26, 2015 10:59:27 GMT -5
Technically speaking, one COULD build/create their own country if they wanted to. There is always the possibility of new volcanic islands... This doesn't solve the problem. The suggestion of starting one's own gang- and hoping that one of the other bigger and more powerful gangs doesn't decide to take over your territory is not really an option that correctly answers the question: does an individual have a right to exist independent of permission from a gang? Can a person simply "be", and interact - or not interact - voluntarily with others? Or must a person obtain permission from the state to exist? I would say, if you were to pack a backpack and disappear into the wilderness to live as a hermit, that you could successfully 'be' without being part of a gang. The problem is, if you want to use roads or your wastewater into a sewer, those are provided by the gang. The gang imposes regulations on things like driving, and polices those rules to make sure no one is endangering other people - if you want to drive a car, you have to comply with those gang rules, too. If you need an ambulance or fire truck, those are also provided by the gang. So would you be willing to do without sewer service, or emergency services, or regulated traffic in order to 'be' on your own, outside of a gang? Possibly there are areas where you could live and opt out of any of the services the local gang provides (or maybe areas plunged in civil war where there are no gang services anymore) but the question would then become, what kind of a life would you live outside of the gang? If your neighbor, also outside the gang, dumped his sewage at the back of his lot where it ran onto your property, and there was no gang around to provide the legal system and court system to prosecute him, what would you do?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 26, 2015 11:36:46 GMT -5
Technically speaking, one COULD build/create their own country if they wanted to. There is always the possibility of new volcanic islands... This doesn't solve the problem. The suggestion of starting one's own gang- and hoping that one of the other bigger and more powerful gangs doesn't decide to take over your territory is not really an option that correctly answers the question: does an individual have a right to exist independent of permission from a gang? Can a person simply "be", and interact - or not interact - voluntarily with others? Or must a person obtain permission from the state to exist? your existence doesn't depend on the state. actually, it is precisely the opposite. the state depends on the existence of the citizen. why do you have to be so dramatic?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 26, 2015 11:38:49 GMT -5
This doesn't solve the problem. The suggestion of starting one's own gang- and hoping that one of the other bigger and more powerful gangs doesn't decide to take over your territory is not really an option that correctly answers the question: does an individual have a right to exist independent of permission from a gang? Can a person simply "be", and interact - or not interact - voluntarily with others? Or must a person obtain permission from the state to exist? I would say, if you were to pack a backpack and disappear into the wilderness to live as a hermit, that you could successfully 'be' without being part of a gang. The problem is, if you want to use roads or your wastewater into a sewer, those are provided by the gang. The gang imposes regulations on things like driving, and polices those rules to make sure no one is endangering other people - if you want to drive a car, you have to comply with those gang rules, too. If you need an ambulance or fire truck, those are also provided by the gang. So would you be willing to do without sewer service, or emergency services, or regulated traffic in order to 'be' on your own, outside of a gang? Possibly there are areas where you could live and opt out of any of the services the local gang provides (or maybe areas plunged in civil war where there are no gang services anymore) but the question would then become, what kind of a life would you live outside of the gang? If your neighbor, also outside the gang, dumped his sewage at the back of his lot where it ran onto your property, and there was no gang around to provide the legal system and court system to prosecute him, what would you do? if you think about this CAREFULLY, you will discover that the state is there to serve you, not the other way around. if you think about things to the depth of Larken Rose, then not so much.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 26, 2015 11:39:31 GMT -5
that means I can stop paying taxes right? After all, why should I, a non- citizen, have to pay for anything that would , and I quote, NEVER EVER, be available to me should I need it? Or am I just supposed to kiss the ground SCP walks on and thank him that I am allowed to put money in the kitty should he or his ever need help? Actually, unless or until the workforce participation rate reaches 80% with an unemployment rate of 5% or less, you shouldn't even be living or working here. we did fine in the 50's when WFP was lower than today.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,896
|
Post by happyhoix on May 26, 2015 13:25:36 GMT -5
Hmm, hadn't heard of Larken Rose or the 861 argument.
Interesting.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 26, 2015 15:29:51 GMT -5
yeah, he is a real piece of work, that guy.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on May 26, 2015 16:02:58 GMT -5
Actually, unless or until the workforce participation rate reaches 80% with an unemployment rate of 5% or less, you shouldn't even be living or working here. we did fine in the 50's when WFP was lower than today. Apples and Oranges. In the 50's organ transplants didn't exist and something like dialysis was limited. Joint replacements and cancer treatment was not even on the horizion yet. We didn't expect society to fund these types of procedures as part of the social safety net. In the 50's the SS rate was 1.5-2.5% and there was no medicare tax, in fact medicare didn't exist. Now households pay 6% more of their income to support those programs, 12% more if you count the employer portion. In the 50's Medicaid didn't exist either. If a baby was born premature or with severe defects chances were pretty good the child wouldn't survive. Medical spending per capital is a statistic I can't seem to track down, but I'm sure it - plus the higher payroll taxes and property taxes, are a large reason why most households need two incomes to be self-sufficient. That and the erosion of well paying manufacturing jobs. Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and Veteran's health spending account for 65% of all medical spending in the US today. Property taxes in the 50's only had to support schools that provided the three R's. Now schools have to provide social services, meals, personal aids for special needs kids, IEP's, ELL, etc. Sales taxes were on average about 1% of personal income in the 50's, now it's over 2%. Gas taxes, utility taxes, all taxes as a percentage of income have increased since the 50's. I'm trying to find historical data on total individual tax burden but damn if it's slippery to track down. I don't think anyone (myself included) truly knows how much in direct and indirect taxes they pay in any given year. So in short, I think households pay higher total taxes and medical costs today resulting in less discretionary spending. I also think most families have a higher SOL than in the 50's so I doubt very many would want to go back (air conditioning and gas heat anyone?)
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 26, 2015 16:11:54 GMT -5
we did fine in the 50's when WFP was lower than today. Apples and Oranges. In the 50's organ transplants didn't exist and something like dialysis was limited. Joint replacements and cancer treatment was not even on the horizion yet. We didn't expect society to fund these types of procedures as part of the social safety net. In the 50's the SS rate was 1.5-2.5% and there was no medicare tax, in fact medicare didn't exist. Now households pay 6% more of their income to support those programs, 12% more if you count the employer portion. In the 50's Medicaid didn't exist either. If a baby was born premature or with severe defects chances were pretty good the child wouldn't survive. Medical spending per capital is a statistic I can't seem to track down, but I'm sure it - plus the higher payroll taxes and property taxes, are a large reason why most households need two incomes to be self-sufficient. That and the erosion of well paying manufacturing jobs. Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and Veteran's health spending account for 65% of all medical spending in the US today. Property taxes in the 50's only had to support schools that provided the three R's. Now schools have to provide social services, meals, personal aids for special needs kids, IEP's, ELL, etc. Sales taxes were on average about 1% of personal income in the 50's, now it's over 2%. Gas taxes, utility taxes, all taxes as a percentage of income have increased since the 50's. I'm trying to find historical data on total individual tax burden but damn if it's slippery to track down. I don't think anyone (myself included) truly knows how much in direct and indirect taxes they pay in any given year. So in short, I think households pay higher total taxes and medical costs today resulting in less discretionary spending. I also think most families have a higher SOL than in the 50's so I doubt very many would want to go back (air conditioning and gas heat anyone?) interesting factoids, but the only one i give credence to is the SOL point. the fact is that wages kept pace with productivity until about 1973. if they had kept pace since then, all of these costs would have been covered.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 26, 2015 18:15:51 GMT -5
we did fine in the 50's when WFP was lower than today. Apples and Oranges. In the 50's organ transplants didn't exist and something like dialysis was limited. Joint replacements and cancer treatment was not even on the horizion yet. We didn't expect society to fund these types of procedures as part of the social safety net. In the 50's the SS rate was 1.5-2.5% and there was no medicare tax, in fact medicare didn't exist. Now households pay 6% more of their income to support those programs, 12% more if you count the employer portion. In the 50's Medicaid didn't exist either. If a baby was born premature or with severe defects chances were pretty good the child wouldn't survive. Medical spending per capital is a statistic I can't seem to track down, but I'm sure it - plus the higher payroll taxes and property taxes, are a large reason why most households need two incomes to be self-sufficient. That and the erosion of well paying manufacturing jobs. Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and Veteran's health spending account for 65% of all medical spending in the US today. Property taxes in the 50's only had to support schools that provided the three R's. Now schools have to provide social services, meals, personal aids for special needs kids, IEP's, ELL, etc. Sales taxes were on average about 1% of personal income in the 50's, now it's over 2%. Gas taxes, utility taxes, all taxes as a percentage of income have increased since the 50's. I'm trying to find historical data on total individual tax burden but damn if it's slippery to track down. I don't think anyone (myself included) truly knows how much in direct and indirect taxes they pay in any given year. So in short, I think households pay higher total taxes and medical costs today resulting in less discretionary spending. I also think most families have a higher SOL than in the 50's so I doubt very many would want to go back (air conditioning and gas heat anyone?) In the 1950's the income tax didn't require a family to have two incomes- one to pay for the eating and sleeping in the climate controlled indoors, and one to pay the taxes.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 26, 2015 18:16:30 GMT -5
Apples and Oranges. In the 50's organ transplants didn't exist and something like dialysis was limited. Joint replacements and cancer treatment was not even on the horizion yet. We didn't expect society to fund these types of procedures as part of the social safety net. In the 50's the SS rate was 1.5-2.5% and there was no medicare tax, in fact medicare didn't exist. Now households pay 6% more of their income to support those programs, 12% more if you count the employer portion. In the 50's Medicaid didn't exist either. If a baby was born premature or with severe defects chances were pretty good the child wouldn't survive. Medical spending per capital is a statistic I can't seem to track down, but I'm sure it - plus the higher payroll taxes and property taxes, are a large reason why most households need two incomes to be self-sufficient. That and the erosion of well paying manufacturing jobs. Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and Veteran's health spending account for 65% of all medical spending in the US today. Property taxes in the 50's only had to support schools that provided the three R's. Now schools have to provide social services, meals, personal aids for special needs kids, IEP's, ELL, etc. Sales taxes were on average about 1% of personal income in the 50's, now it's over 2%. Gas taxes, utility taxes, all taxes as a percentage of income have increased since the 50's. I'm trying to find historical data on total individual tax burden but damn if it's slippery to track down. I don't think anyone (myself included) truly knows how much in direct and indirect taxes they pay in any given year. So in short, I think households pay higher total taxes and medical costs today resulting in less discretionary spending. I also think most families have a higher SOL than in the 50's so I doubt very many would want to go back (air conditioning and gas heat anyone?) interesting factoids, but the only one i give credence to is the SOL point. the fact is that wages kept pace with productivity until about 1973. if they had kept pace since then, all of these costs would have been covered. Gold standard?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 26, 2015 18:20:10 GMT -5
interesting factoids, but the only one i give credence to is the SOL point. the fact is that wages kept pace with productivity until about 1973. if they had kept pace since then, all of these costs would have been covered. Gold standard? honestly, i don't know what started it. ping pong diplomacy? the advent of the home computer? the birth control pill? all of the above? (i am mostly serious about those four suggestions, btw)
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on May 26, 2015 18:40:52 GMT -5
Unless you are truly disabled, no one should be collecting any kind of welfare unless they are over 21, a U.S. Citizen and have worked a minimum of two years. Popping out babies should not qualify you for anything-period. That welfare should be for no longer than 2 years and 1 time only per citizen. Bingo. If you can't afford to raise them, don't have them. If you're a non-citizen, you can NEVER EVER collect welfare. I'm somewhat positive that many of those kids that are born to people that can't afford to raise them are "unwanted" kids if that can even be said. But sometimes there is no alternative but having the child because the state due to pressure from some of our "enlightened" citizens chose to deny ones right of choice of how to run their own life. No education to speak of, a child that you can't afford to send to daycare and no relatives to watch the child for free, a father that is nowhere in site or "unknown", what choice is there left? Give it up for adoption? Not everyone wants that. I'm fine with paying my share in that! Someday, I'm sure we will decide to invade another country with no motive whatsoever. Who's gonna fight that war? I'm too old to do that shit!
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on May 26, 2015 18:51:44 GMT -5
You don't want to give up your baby for adoption? Then don't get pregnant or have the baby. Contrary to common belief, most republicans do believe in abortion. I'd rather a baby not be born that support it in another generation of welfare. Children should not raise children and if you can't support a child without someone's tax dollars, you have no business having one.
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on May 26, 2015 18:58:27 GMT -5
True as it may be zib, it cannot be done for the simple reason that we, as individuals have no right to tell another to have or not have sex. It is after all a basic freedom. And I'm not accusing republicans of democrats because there are opponents on each side. Their opposition is based on "immorality" backed by their religious beliefs. We elect them to represent us and they find advise in the Bible not in common sens. Religion and politics should not mix but it apears that people care more about going to Heaven than do what would be fair for all.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 26, 2015 18:58:50 GMT -5
You don't want to give up your baby for adoption? Then don't get pregnant or have the baby. Contrary to common belief, most republicans do believe in abortion. I'd rather a baby not be born that support it in another generation of welfare. Children should not raise children and if you can't support a child without someone's tax dollars, you have no business having one. Well, let's just meet in the middle at don't come here from some third world shit hole and clog up our welfare system. Have kids, don't have kids- I don't care. Just do whatever it is you're going to do at home, in your own country. And that goes for the tens of millions here illegally. Go the fuck home.
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on May 26, 2015 19:01:07 GMT -5
My FIL believes that one should pass a basic test before being allowed to have children and I kinda agree with that.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 26, 2015 19:01:44 GMT -5
True as it may be zib, it cannot be done for the simple reason that we, as individuals have no right to tell another to have or not have sex. It is after all a basic freedom. And I'm not accusing republicans of democrats because there are opponents on each side. Their opposition is based on "immorality" backed by their religious beliefs. We elect them to represent us and they find advise in the Bible not in common sens. Religion and politics should not mix but it apears that people care more about going to Heaven than do what would be fair for all. Well, my position is one based on morality backed up by my religion. You shall not steal. If anyone won't work, they should not eat. But this is fundamental not merely to religion, but to virtually all cultures. It's one of mathematical and economic reality. You can't have more than half the able bodied adult population not working, but still eating, and still sleeping in the climate controlled indoors. It has been tried. It always fails.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 26, 2015 19:02:16 GMT -5
My FIL believes that one should pass a basic test before being allowed to have children and I kinda agree with that. You need to pass a test to drive.
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on May 26, 2015 19:03:00 GMT -5
Barking at the wrong tree Paul! I came here illegaly and presently I pay in taxes more than some born and raised proud Americans make in a year so, your point is moot in a way!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 1, 2024 19:59:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2015 19:05:56 GMT -5
My FIL believes that one should pass a basic test before being allowed to have children and I kinda agree with that. I agree with that... except I don't think the test should be "basic" at all... I think it should be pretty comprehensive and take AT LEAST a couple of days (well... raising kids takes a while... why should the test to see if you are worthy be over in 15 minutes or less?).
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on May 26, 2015 19:13:16 GMT -5
I agree with your position there Paul -post 113. it is not necessarily the "illegals" that have children, stay home and draw on welfare forever. In our town I am most likely the only foreign born and raised. There are at least 5 people that I know that draw welfare and never look for a job. I gave one of them a job a few years back and I had the guy in charge on the site calling me the second day and telling me that he's done. The man fell asleep standing/leaning against a wall. Never could keep a job and neither could his girlfriend to whom he fathered three children. But they are both proud to be the n-teen generation Americans!
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on May 26, 2015 19:46:20 GMT -5
Illegals are an easy target, yet step foot in any trailer park or visit some rural areas and you will see the glut of flag waving white American citizens living on the dole. If there is a 'moocher class' it is well represented by all types of folks.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on May 26, 2015 20:35:58 GMT -5
That's why it needs to end. You don't work? You don't eat. I'm not including the mentally and physically disabled or the elderly but I'm over people breeding children to qualify for all sorts of benefits while the system punishes those who don't. All it does is teach people to do the wrong thing and get rewarded for it. You do the right thing, you get penalized by taxes so you stay single, make babies with baby daddies, and get all kinds of rewards. Just stupid. Nothing for non-citizens or their children-ever. Stop clogging up the schools and ER's too.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on May 26, 2015 22:09:46 GMT -5
You don't want to give up your baby for adoption? Then don't get pregnant or have the baby. Contrary to common belief, most republicans do believe in abortion. I'd rather a baby not be born that support it in another generation of welfare. Children should not raise children and if you can't support a child without someone's tax dollars, you have no business having one. Got anything to back that up? According to this, 27% of Republicans are pro-choice, while 69% are pro-life. 27% isn't "most".
www.gallup.com/poll/170249/split-abortion-pro-choice-pro-life.aspx
|
|