Vintage man on phone

Well..... personally I like being in women's wombs.

A threat?

It's more like the baby killers wanting to have it both ways - Don't want other to have an opinion but uses our tax dollars to do it. Yes, public funding is used for abortions and for organizations which do abortions.

Why would you NOT care? Why should our tax funds go for abortion or anything else which is elective like someone's tummy tuck or their penile enlargement? I think that we could both agree that this is BS.

They are all ELECTIVE. Yes, abortion kills an innocent human being so in that way it is different. The stage of development doesn't change what it is.

If you don't like gov funds for abortion maybe you should fight to end the $42 million we spend a year in government funding for viagra that is causing many of these abortions to happen in the first place!

Please take some biology - VIAGRA doesn't cause pregnancy but your point about us spending public funds on it is valid. Why should we fund Viagra? I agree with you in that we shouldn't.

It's actually a response another bad abortion argument as when they tell pro-lifers to stay out of their womb but at the same time are fighting to keep it funded by taxpayers - as they do in California.

It's known fact there is no better way for a woman to drop into poverty than to have a child. Outlawing abortion means trillions in welfare and criminal justice costs. Outlawing abortion is an unfunded mandate.

Total bull. Babies do not cause poverty and unless they think like you then they make us richer. TRILLIONS ON WELFARE??? TRILLIONS IN JAIL?? TRILLIONS???? That's a lot of hysteria and baloney. We only have 7 billion people on the planet. And where is this crystal ball which allows you to see who is going to be criminals or on Welfare?? Why not kill all the people on Welfare and in jail instead of guessing by killing the innocent - if that's your goal? And if you are going to kill your offspring then do it on with your own money and not with public funding.

You are obviously thinking with your gut and with no information of the true outcomes.

There is well proven statistical knowledge of the link between forced unwanted pregnancy and poverty that lasts for many years.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/women-denied-abortions-are-significantly-more-likely-to-experience-poverty-2018-01-18

https://www.ansirh.org/news/socioeconomic-outcomes-women-who-receive-and-women-who-are-denied-wanted-abortions

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30336087

There also is a well established link between legalized abortion and a reduction in crime years later, when this most at risk group would be out stealing and killing others. NOT ONLY IN AMERICA BUT AROUND THE WORLD.

http://freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/

So save a baby today, only to possibly kill your own 17yrs later due to crime and murder.

Oh, so now you want to move the goal posts and add FORCED and UNWANTED PREGNANCIES. The overall poverty rate in America is around 14%. That's the TOTAL NUMBER OF AMERICANS LIVING IN POVERTY. That means that 84% of society didn't send their mothers into poverty when they were born. And where in America are women FORCED to give birth??? Where are they?

BTW, the so called link between abortion and crime has been debunked. As for your last comment - consider the lunacy of it - KILL YOUR OFFSPRING BECAUSE THEY MIGHT (FILL IN THE BLANK).

Forced pregnancy means, not allowing abortion. 75% of those getting abortions are already in poverty. Take away their ability to have abortions, 75% of those abortions that will be stopped, you and I will be paying for. Along with food stamps, welfare, education, the list goes on and on.

Of course most people with kids do fine. That's because they have kids when they "choose" and are ready to.

The link between abortion and crime has not been debunked. The link I sent you shows why and talks about it if you actually cared to learn something. It was a biased study similar to the doctor who claimed a link between childhood immunization and autism. Completely debunked yet people still refuse to believe it.

You don't believe that its trillions?
About 61 million abortions since Roe v Wade. Considering maybe 7% of those abortions would happen anyway due to the health of the mother or fetus, that leaves 56.7 million possible births if Roe V Wade never happened. If 75% of those women are poor, which they are, that is 42.5 million births on the taxpayer dime. At a cost of $47 each, that would be 2 trillion dollars.

It's pretty likely the true cost would be considerably higher than 2 trillion.

879,000 abortions happened in 2017. If abortion is outlawed and 75% of these women are poor, that would be 659,250. At a conservative yearly cost estimate of $7500 a year to raise an unwanted child, that's $4,944,375,000 in year 2017 alone on the tax payer. Nearly 5 trillion dollars in cost for one year!

Yet, most on the right don't want to have to pay for birth control for the poor. The alternative costs much, much more.

First of all, my apologies as I misread your comment regarding trillions and thought that you were referring to trillions of people. Even at trillions of dollars though you are only speculating that most of those babies would be on Welfare. The sword also cuts both ways in that some of those babies are going to turn out to be millionaires and throw in a billionaire somewhere too. But if I am reading you correctly, you seem to be saying that money is more important than a human life, correct? And it is morally acceptable to kill someone if they get in the way of your career, correct? I have spoken with many women and a lot of them in my family who have had abortions and not one of them are well off. Not one. My relative who has had the most abortions (11) should be the most well off according to your formula and she isn’t. You are starting off with a straw man when you state that women are “forced” to give birth because there is no such woman in America. Here in California the state pays for them. I’ve seen where people bus women for miles to kill their babies. The answer to poverty isn’t kill babies, it’s the free market and following sound economic wisdom. You don’t have a crystal ball and neither do I so rolling the dice on the poor innocent unborn babies is playing the ultimate elitist. The link between abortion and crime HAS been debunked - https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/does-abortion-really-reduce-crime.

Yes, it is likely there would be some who would turn out just fine.

No, I'm not saying money is more important than human life. I'm saying that the primary argument on the right is to not, "fund" abortion because these people need to become responsible. Saying, "these people need to become responsible" does absolutely NOTHING toward getting them to be, nor does outlawing abortion and forcing them to then have children.

You seem to be saying that if the individual you know was forced to have children, somehow that would make her more responsible and make her a good mother. We both know that is not the case. It would likely lead to "forcing" us, to pick up the tab and feed 12 instead of one. The answer to stopping the cycle she is in, is not, "sound economic wisdom" because it is likely she will never have it, or much of anything else either.

Abortion isn't good. No one on either side likes abortion. This woman having more kids, is not a solution and would make the situation worse than it already is.

There has been a huge outcry from the right against Planned Parenthood for giving away free birth control. Why exactly is this the case? There is no win for the right when it comes to preventing pregnancy it seems. Only abstinence, which is basically saying, "these people need to be more responsible". Neither abstinence nor responsibility is likely for many people.

Thanks for the response. Why do you think abortion isn't good and that no one likes it? Who are we to say who would turn out fine or not and that if one didn't then we could make them a candidate for the trash can? It is inhumane to kill someone because they are poor or needy. We don't want abortions funded for 3 reasons - 1-It kills a human being 2-tax dollars shouldn't be used for this purpose 3- one of the primary roles of government is to protect those who cannot protect themselves.

No one cares that PP give out cheap birth control. If that's all they did then no one would even know who they are. They are opposed because they kill unborn children and do so on our dime. We can also get into the racist nature of the founder and the genesis of PP which is eugenics. They have also been caught selling body parts as well as turning a blind eye to sex trafficking. Whether one is abstinent or not is irrelevant. That is one's personal problem. The pro-life position is that - it is immoral to take the life of an innocent human being without proper justification/Abortion takes the life of an innocent human being without proper justification/ Therefore abortion is immoral.

Only **pe victims are forced to have children and that rarely happens. Since life begins at conception then everyone who gets pregnant already has a child right at conception. The question becomes "What are you going to do with that child?". Why not have the child adopted?? Killing the child seems to be the only solution today and that is sad how the public has been brainwashed to think that this is the best and only solution. You seem a reasonable person but killing the innocent is irrational.

I gave you an economic answer on how to avoid poverty and it works and it is a false notion that people can't change or control their destinies. Plenty have broken the chains of poverty and many more will do so. It can never be solved completely because people have a free will. BTW, these people should not be on our dime for their lifetime. It we have smaller and more limited government then we would pay less taxes and give more in charity to help those who really need it. Government is not God.

As if you - like the rest of these women hating incels - are getting any.
Still, it's the thought that counts and a simple piece of logic that always seems to zip past the wee heads of all these super studz.

Speaking of...
Trillions IN "welfare and criminal justice costs," not ON, as in trillions of dollar$.

It goes something like this: the more of something requiring food, shelter, and other amenities, the more of said amenities required, and thus, the more funding required to fund them.

Because maffs.