They must insist on every fetus go full term, but once the child is born they veto SCHIP so the child won't have any health care. I guess they expect newborns to go get jobs.
2007-12-18 03:14:52 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
So the child has to be born, but after that it's on it's own? We'll force you to cary the pregnancy out, but then the child better get a job because we're not paying for it? Doesn't make sense to me, all this compassion for unborn fetuses and absolutely none for children.
2007-12-18 03:24:54 · update #1
It is a dichotomy. Basically, as we see with the Iraq occupation, neo-cons like to enforce rules, yet do not like to sacrifice anything for the very rules they wish to enforce. They always quote the slogan "freedom isn't free". Yet, they do not personally give up any comforts for this so-called, costly freedom. As we see, they have no reservations with borrowing and spending hundreds of billions of dollars from this nation's children. If it takes more than sticking a ribbon somewhere, forget about it.
2007-12-18 03:23:38 · answer #1 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Well we see how misinformed Pfo is, when he thinks late term abortions make up 93% of all abortions. Stretching it as far as possible and making the claim that a late term abortion is any abortion after 13 weeks, when in reality late term is defined after 20, and some sources define it after 16 weeks; still abortions occuring after 13 weeks only make up at most 12% of all abortions, and that is including emergency partial birth abortions. 54% make up abortions prior to 8 weeks or less, and 20% make up 8-10 week abortions. 12% make up 11-12 week abortions.
and of course these are estimates dropping the decimal so don't start crying about it doesn't even make up 100%!
Most hospitals and clinics will not even perform abortions after the 16th week. They have their own policies against it. Making abortion illegal will drop it right into the hands of organized crime, prevent it from being regualted from any "in-house" policies or laws.
2007-12-18 11:40:00 · answer #2 · answered by avail_skillz 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We do care if children have health care. We also care that it's children that actually need it, and preferably without the biggest tax hike in United States history to pay for it.
The Democratic version of "poor" is anyone who makes up to 80,000 dollars a year. That's extended well into the middle class, who should darn well be paying for their own insurance already, and is unfair to whom the program was meant for.
The Democratic definition of "child" is anyone up to the age of 25. The last time I checked, anyone over 18 was an adult, who should be responsible for themselves.
If the Democrats would stop peddling their funny definitions into the Schip bill and trying to piggyback socialism, Bush would have passed it a long time ago.
Why do THEY choose to play politics with children?
2007-12-18 11:24:35 · answer #3 · answered by Karma 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
If the conservatives believe that they should keep their own money, then how in the hell do you propose we pay for the necessities in this country? Why don't you people tell the truth? You want to choose where your tax dollars go, and helping the needy is not an option to you but corporate welfare is just great. Admit it, it is all about money with you.
2007-12-18 11:30:09 · answer #4 · answered by grumpyoldman 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I suppose they could have both, but that would mean deporting illegals and that we would have to stop paying for all the illegals medical bills first. Then we could take care of our own people, but for some reason the Democrats don't want the illegals (aka Criminals) to be harmed.
just think how much more money we would have if we were not paying for the health care and education of these criminals.
2007-12-18 11:27:04 · answer #5 · answered by Colonel 6 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Oh lord, I can't believe I'd ever defend GW! But there was A LOT of "pork" in that bill. Meaning that the money wasn't just for health care for kids, but for various "pet" projects as well.
2007-12-18 11:22:09 · answer #6 · answered by contrarycrow 4 · 7⤊ 2⤋
SCHIP was passed with bipartisan support.
The EXPANSION of the program to 25 year olds whose family makes $80K a year was vetoed.
Try again.
2007-12-18 11:28:57 · answer #7 · answered by Time to Shrug, Atlas 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
We simply believe the choice to become a parent (or not)should take place before pregnancy. It's really not all that complicated if you view individuals responsible for their own actions.
I've never had insurance for my son and he has never been denied healthcare. Just thought I'd throw that in for the bleeders.
2007-12-18 11:28:08 · answer #8 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Because they only care about the fetuses and the zygotes. Once they'e born to unwanting mothers, Cons reject them because that means they'd need welfare. Hypocricy everytime!
2007-12-18 11:25:26 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
That is a salacious statement and patently untrue. We just don't think 21 year olds qualify as children and children of parents that make 80,000 a year qualify.
2007-12-18 11:23:28 · answer #10 · answered by cmdrbnd007 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋