Gillibrand's "Family Bill of Rights"...

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: stormson
a reply to: DBCowboy

so, doing nothing is your solution?

the gov isnt perfect, but its really the only thing that has the size capable of doing a project on this scale. its the only pool large enough.

look at it this way. individual states cant mount an effective army to defend the country. only the gov can by taking from some and giving to others for the nation as a whole.

individual states couldnt build an effective interstates system. only the gov had the size and scope to accomplish it.

sometimes you have to be a team player.

If being a "team player" means socialist bullcrap programs and higher taxes, then you can stuff your "team player" mantra where the sun don't shine.

Team player.

*Christ!*

What's next? You going to tell me it's my "patriotic duty" to pay more taxes?

Well, the "it's for the children" line seems to have failed.

a reply to: stormson

Taxpayers shouldn`t be footing the bill at all.

And again, if penalties were involved it might help to encourage the "adults" to think about the consequences of their actions.

And there are many families and couples who are more than willing to adopt ... most of the drawbacks are new rules that allow some of the biological parents to continue to be a part of the childs life and that keeps the child from fully bonding with the adopted family.

Charity is not charity when the funds are taken to be redistributed at the point of a gun. In any other case that would be robbery , but politicians really want the "votes" of the "benefit getters".

I have no respect for that mentality at all.

I worked like a dog to take care of my family, and they can damn well do the same.

a reply to: Krakatoa

The thing about leftists is that they cannot rationally argue a subject.

They play on emotions, use "buzz words", anything but a full realization of the facts.


We have people openly acknowledging that the government doesn't spend wisely, is corrupt, but want the government to have more power, control and our money regardless.

It is the utter definition of irrational behavior.

The left is so delusional, if they take the money from the rich, the rich tack some extra on to what they pay and charge more for their product to cover the cost, and as the costs go up, the extra profit also requires more extra cost to be added to again pay taxes.

This woman is delusional, she does not understand how things work in the economy, big businesses will just raise prices, their owners and top workers will not take less in salaries and profits.

a reply to: stormson

"Ease the financial burden on America's families" is an interesting way of describing a policy which would absolutely increase the financial burden on my family in the form of higher taxes to pay off her voter base.

a reply to: G0DK1LL3R

I agree. In fact, I think 2 years down the road if the mother tried and realized it's not for her, who am I to force her to be a mother, let her kill that poor unwanted baby. I mean the horror of forcing her to be a mother, the child is better off dead for sure.

originally posted by: stormson

"1. Right to a safe and healthy pregnancy. The U.S. has the highest rate of pregnancy-related deaths in the industrialized world...These are largely preventable deaths — they’re generally caused by a lack of supplies, insufficient training...I’ll make sure states and hospitals are equipped to prevent and respond to pregnancy complications."
[...]

Ok, so, a whopping 26 deaths in 2015, maybe 18 in 2000, and 17 in 1990. This is deaths per 100,000 live child births.

Sorry, I don't exactly see this as a crisis.

As I wrote earlier, I know nothing of this person,

She's a typical radical leftist democrat.

only that this is a great idea.

Yeah, they have lots of good ideas - until you realize their solution is more/bigger government control of our lives, and less personal responsibility/accountability.

As for this monstrosity...

She wants to subsidize the cost of having a child. How insane is that? And not just for normal people. She wants to pay LGBQT people money so they can pay the surrogacy costs for 'having' children, so they can continue spreading their religion.

That said, there is one thing in her plan that I like...

I've been in favor of a small 'financial transactions' excise tax on all wall-street financial/currency transactions.

In fact, done right, we could replace the entire income tax with a financial transactions excise tyax, and without adding a national sales tax.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: G0DK1LL3R

I agree. In fact, I think 2 years down the road if the mother tried and realized it's not for her, who am I to force her to be a mother, let her kill that poor unwanted baby. I mean the horror of forcing her to be a mother, the child is better off dead for sure.

Yeh because that is what I said. *eye roll*

Questions still stands with added scenario.

You just forced a woman to give birth. Now what?

A couple of scenarios to consider.

Mother does not want child gives it up for state care in hopes that it will be adopted but there are more children in state care than are adopted

Mother is addicted to drugs/alcohol but wants to take baby, promising she will take care of child but due to her addiction she surrounds herself with shady characters...More than 90 percent of child sexual abuse victims know their attacker. State becomes aware and takes child, willing to have your tax dollars go to helping?

Mother had baby and father leaves, with no support and mother was already struggling to get by, so she turns to the state to help her. She is working but money is just not cutting it, so she needs money from state to help her get by and women receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children benefits were also employed. Are you willing to let your tax dollars go to helping the mother and child?

Mother does not want child but takes child because she will get extra money if claiming child, child is not properly taken care of or loved. After years of neglect, 4.1 million child maltreatment referral reports received.. Are you willing to let your tax dollars go to helping this child by providing a home and other needs?


Many more...so what now after you forced this child birth?

originally posted by: G0DK1LL3R
Like I said before, I am against abortion but am for a women's right to choose, no matter how much I disagree with her choice.

The birth of a child dramatically impacts the Mothers life from the day the baby is conceived, until it grows up and leaves the nest.

Do you support the right of the mother to choose to kill her 2 year old baby because it dramatically impairs her life in so many ways?

If not, how is it different from her killing it before it is born?

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: G0DK1LL3R
Like I said before, I am against abortion but am for a women's right to choose, no matter how much I disagree with her choice.

The birth of a child dramatically impacts the Mothers life from the day the baby is conceived, until it grows up and leaves the nest.

Do you support the right of the mother to choose to kill her 2 year old baby because it dramatically impairs her life in so many ways?

If not, how is it different from her killing it before it is born?

I already said I do not support abortion but I also support the right of a person to decide their own fate. If they choose to abort, it is on them and it is they who lived with consequences.

Yes the unborn child also suffers but I have shown that when an unwanted child is born they suffer also.

You guys are so gung ho to have this child born but do not care about the consequences that this child may suffer. Once it is born, you guys are "well my job is done" because after birth, that same child is not your problem.

a reply to: tanstaafl

You guys live in a dreamworld where you think that all women (who intended to abort) will magically be a mother to that child or take responsibility of that child.

originally posted by: G0DK1LL3R
I already said I do not support abortion but I also support the right of a person to decide their own fate. If they choose to abort, it is on them and it is they who lived with consequences.

Yes the unborn child also suffers but I have shown that when an unwanted child is born they suffer also.

Ouch... so you do support the right of the mother to choose to kill her 2 year old baby because it dramatically impairs her life in so many ways.

I think it is a monstrous belief, but at least you're honest about it.

You guys are so gung ho to have this child born but do not care about the consequences that this child may suffer. Once it is born, you guys are "well my job is done" because after birth, that same child is not your problem.

I believe that any woman/girl who finds themselves in this position always has an out - it is called adoption.

originally posted by: G0DK1LL3R
You guys live in a dreamworld where you think that all women (who intended to abort) will magically be a mother to that child or take responsibility of that child.

You could say that, yes.

Or, you could say that 'us guys' live in a world where adoption is a real, viable solution to unwanted children/pregnancies.

Admitting that adoption is a viable option to abortion leaves pro abortion activists with one last argument - the inconvenience of having to carry an unborn baby to term - a ludicrous argument that puts the minor inconvenience of a woman who made the choice to engage in behavior that she knows could result in becoming pregnant over the life of an unborn child.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: G0DK1LL3R
I already said I do not support abortion but I also support the right of a person to decide their own fate. If they choose to abort, it is on them and it is they who lived with consequences.

Yes the unborn child also suffers but I have shown that when an unwanted child is born they suffer also.

Ouch... so you do support the right of the mother to choose to kill her 2 year old baby because it dramatically impairs her life in so many ways.

I think it is a monstrous belief, but at least you're honest about it.

Again....yeh because that is what I said. *eye roll*

It is so weird how you guys always make stuff up in order to try and win an argument. LMAO

a reply to: tanstaafl

And your post proves you choose to disregard facts.

There are more children in state care than there are couples ready to adopt. An average of 428'000 thousand children are in state care in a given year while an average 138'000 are adopted in any given year.

Yes, adoption is a choice but there is no guarantee they will be adopted.

a reply to: G0DK1LL3R

But how did it GET IN HER BODY?

Oh, yeah, she likely felt horny and opened her legs and made a choice to have sex with some random baby daddy even though you have to be literally dumber than a box of rocks NOT TO KNOW THAT MAKES YOU PREGNANT.

a reply to: G0DK1LL3R

Except the baby isn't her body. It's another human being. So her choice does affect someone else.

Gillbrand's Family Rights =

LBJ made the state Daddy. Now I want to make the state Mommy too!

originally posted by: G0DK1LL3R
An average of 428'000 thousand children are in state care in a given year while an average 138'000 are adopted in any given year.

Yes, adoption is a choice but there is no guarantee they will be adopted.

So, ever wonder why?

Maybe it's because of the absurdly high cost to adopt (average cost is $43,000 via an adoption Agency, $38,000 via an adoption Attorney).

originally posted by: G0DK1LL3R
"Ouch... so you do support the right of the mother to choose to kill her 2 year old baby because it dramatically impairs her life in so many ways.

I think it is a monstrous belief, but at least you're honest about it."

Again....yeh because that is what I said. *eye roll*

Actually - in essence, you did say that, by way of your partial non-answer to my very pointed question.

Go back and read it.