I don't care about abortion one way or another. but it should be considered cosmetic.

I mean, why in the hell should the rest of the nation pay because they made a mistake?

They're saying if they go out get drunk, get boned by some random dude and get knocked up, that the government (tax paying citizens) should pay for it? By that logic; if I get drunk and throw a rock through someone's window, the government should pay for that too right?

saying this as someone who normally leans to the left; PAY FOR YOUR OWN IRRESPONSIBILITY

Out of curiousity, do economists in your nation ever carry out cost/benefit analyses?

You will pay for it sooner or later. If you can prevent that an unwanted child is born, by a mother who can't or doesn't want to care for it properly, that will, statistically, save the community a lot of expenses later on.

I recommend reading or watching an economist talk about prevention research and the economical gains. It's the same with alcohol/drug prevention; sure, the program may seem expensive for the tax payers, but the alternative is ludicriously costly in comparison.

sorry, double posted

plus those little bastards won't be around to steal my car later on.

blasted child, you have to understand the nature of Americans. Most would cut their own nose off to spite their face.

they are not worried about babies growing up in bad situations or becoming criminals, or any other social problem later on cause it is THAT BABIES choice to grow up and not become a sucessfull member of society.

i had a conversation with a guy about health care today. he said that the government had no business taking care of people, or dictating policy to insurance companies.

i pointed out that 45,000 people a year die from lack of health insurance. more than cancer.

i also pointed out that we have fought two wars and given up a lot of individual freedoms because a few assholes killed 4,000 or so people eight years ago.

and it makes no sense to get mad about one and not the ohter.

his point was that the people who die from lack of insurance could do something about it if they didnt sit around and wait for the government to help them, while the people involved in 9/11 were innocent victims whom the government should have protected.

do you see the problem? do you see what the reasonable people of this country have to deal with?

I want to start the "fuck it" party. our slogan will be like, "world pissing you off? Fuck It!"

You mean the Liberal party?

i thought "not giving a shit about anything" was more of a libertarian trait

what was Perot's Party?

reform party

Capitalists? I don't really see the problem with what he said. Technically, he's right, it isn't the role if our government to take care of people, but it is the job of our government to protect us from foreign jerks.

So basically we should pay for their irresponsibility because it was save us from them being welfare recipients/criminals in the future.
1) Not all people getting abortions are poor/gonna be a weight on society.
2) All poor people are catholic/religious and their children are their welfare meal tickets.
3) There's already programs to make it free/cheap.
4) We'd save more money if we just shot them in the face.

There are seriously not enough bullets in the world.

I think we should shoot everybody, not just babies.

i think there's enough bullets in the world and I would be willing to place a bet on this!

the world population is only like 6-7 billion right?

plus with a well placed shotgun round you can kill or make bleed to death multiple persons.

Yeah, but most people require multiple bullets. Not to kill them, they just deserve it. Some people deserve a whole magazine.

well you can just stab them or something

I'm not sure I understand your tone of voice here, if this is really your opinions, or if you're being ironic.

Why isn't it your government's role to take care of people? Isn't that part of what governments do, take care of people who can't take care of themselves, using tax money?
Why is that wrong? Why wouldn't some of your tax money go to people who can't help themselves?

What does taking care of yourself have to do with abortions and healthcare? See that's what's retarded is that you can go from "Taking care of people" implying basic essentials to me food and water and maybe not dying but then all of a sudden that also means they need abortions.
and no, everybody is supposed to pay their own way one way or another. If some retarded cripple is born and never does anything and is always a burden on the state i dunno what to fucking think. Why should anybody pay for it? shouldn't it just be dead? The only reason we really take care of things like that and insane people that nobody wants is because its a danger to society.

I think the entire idea of social systems in the united states isn't that we owe some obligation to people to "Take care of them" and make sure they have food and water and healthcare and abortions but that you are just giving them a boost so that they will be able to take care of themselves in the future.
Many of the social systems require that you personally pay into it or are privately funded.

Even this new healthcare system isn't going to be "Free."

Well sorry for digressing, but I just quoted your post, where you were saying that it isn't your government's role to take care of people.

That's probably where we're different, but discussing this further seems a bit futile with comments like this

I guess this is the cynical kind of jargon that makes a guy popular at a place like i-mockery dot com, and I wonder if this is really your sentiment in real life - in which case I doubt you've ever worked with or dealt with or even remotely known a "retarded cripple" - but either way, I kind of get an idea of what the popular consensus is in America now

So can we stop with the funding of AIDS medicine for africa and just fund abortions there?

nevermind

A lot of the retards I know actually have jobs, so yea -- they pay their own way. or they have parents that take care of them. That's why I said, "Retarded cripple" because even retards can work jobs and do things unless they are really bad or have some further problem.
It's just hard to imagine somebody who's so fucked up that they will never be able to work or do anything useful in their entire life and they will always be a constraint on the government/tax payers.

And wouldn't the "cost/benefit" analysis for persons such as this say that it would be cheaper to just kill them?

You're the one who thinks that taking care of people means we should give everybody free abortions.

Do you think it was wrong to pull the plug on terry shiavo? (also I'm not very popular)

The whole point of our government and social justice isn't just taking care of people who can't take care of themselves, but to help alleviate social inequalities so that those who weren't born with an innate social advantage (i.e. being born white and rich) can have equal advantages and social mobiliity. The other reason we take care of people, like prisoners and insane persons, is to protect society from them.
Historically, the only role our government was supposed to play was as the Mediator. Basically, to protect people from each other and nature. There's nothing in the constitution that says that it is our job to take care of people who can't take care of themselves with our tax money.

are we talking about chris-chan here?
http://cogsdev.110mb.com/cwcki/index.php/Tugboat