Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (24341)	8/21/2012 6:45:21 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 85487

Fine then you use your tax dollars to pay for the child's birth, education and cost of upbringing. Generally parents are responsible for their children. Arguing that the parent shouldn't be allowed to kill their child, doesn't reasonably obligate the person making the argument to pay for the child's upbringing. Also its not like if I was the world's first (US dollar, at today's valuation) trillionaire, and offered to pay for the upbringing of such children, its not like people would agree to stop having abortions and/or to make abortion illegal. That having been said there are a large number of couples who would like to adopt babies. It is hypocrisy to demand women to be forced to carry a child - especially one of rape or incest - and at the same time want to end all social safety net funding. It might be a bad combination of policies, but there is nothing hypocritical about it. Also what makes you think that I want to "end all social safety net funding"?