A bill passed the house to require doctors to provide medical care for babies who somehow survive abortion.

210 democrats voted against it. 1 voted for it. Nancy Pelosi, always the good catholic, voted against it and called it “anti choice.”. She said people
need “access to reproductive services”. how is a list-birth babies healthcare, connected to anyone’s future reproductive choices?

I thought the abortion argument was “my body, my choice”? these are babies who are already born and therefore not any part for he woman’s body.

what’s the limit on being able to commit infanticide? How long after birth, do liberals think they have the right, to choose to kill their baby? Until the first birthday?

It’s satanic.

No Jim, they voted against it because they know those steps already take place in the real world, you and the far right pushing this for lip service to the anti abortion voters are just doing what this congress will do for two years, politic theater.

No Jim, they voted against it because they know those steps already take place in the real world, you and the far right pushing this for lip service to the anti abortion voters are just doing what this congress will do for two years, politic theater.

no, if that was why they voted against it, they’d have said that. read what they said. Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris both said the bill infringes upon a womans reproductive health choices. they did not say “this is a frivolous, redundant bill and that’s why i’m voting against it”. If the bill did nothing to change the status quo, 210 of 212 house democrats wouldn’t have opposed it. there’d be no reason to oppose it so passionately if it had zero impact.

You’re making stuff up, changing the facts, to put your side is a less ghoulish light.


You are making excuses that they themselves aren’t making. Don’t take my word for it, just read Pelosis comments.

When does a baby become a person? according to house democrats, not at birth. sometime after that. but when? First birthday? When they start kindergarten? age 16?

When is a baby’s life no longer something the mother can “choose” to take?

that’s a sincere, relevant question.

Bob, here, Pelosi that opposing the bill
was “defending reproductive freedom.”

This is a sincere question. How is that baby’s medical care, restricting the mothers reproductive freedoms, after the baby is born? the mom had already reproduced. it’s now a question of the babys existence. the moms want to be able to finish the baby off if the abortion didn’t do the trick. That’s exactly what this is.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/born-alive-act-pelosi-schumer-melt-down-new-bill-care-babies-born-abortion

Again more grandstanding on abortion lets pass a bill for an even that never happens to appease our rabid MAGA anti abortion Hored right besides a bill condemning attacks against anti abortion facilities


tRep. Claudia Tenney (R-N.Y.) accused “radical pro-abortion extremists” of “committing violence against pro-life facilities, groups, and churches.”

Funny that bill says nothing about violence against
not including incidents that involve abortion providers. Why ? if the wanted a bipartisan bill .. but we know they didn't

Abortion didn't get the win the GOP wanted . So but keep pounding the square peg into the round hole . :sleeps:

Jim your party in the House are passing Theater protest Bills for their base with no chance of passage . while trying to call it Governance

You better make sure they mandate care for people with failed brain transplants.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again more grandstanding on abortion

It's not abortion. The babies are born alive.

Wayne, I'll try again here to have an actual conversation.

If a baby is born alive, it's outside the womb, the umbilical cord is cut, it's breathing on its own...is that a person at that point?

If not, when is it a person? When does the mother no longer have the right to choose to end the life?

You better make sure they mandate care for people with failed brain transplants.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

pete, you have said here, that you support abortion up until the moment of birth. This is subsequent to birth, it’s after the birth

I’ll ask you the same question i asked GS and WDMSO. which neither has answered.

When does the baby become a human with a right to life that’s not within the mothers ability to choose to snuff out?

because 210 democrats in the house, say that doesn’t happen right after birth. Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris were crystal clear, that mothers should be able to retain the right to choose to end the life of the baby, after the baby is born. Another term for that, is infanticide.

Wow, it is almost like pro-life voters are actually starting to care about welfare of children after birth. This is a good start. Once they start caring more, they might as well start voting democrat. Next they should start giving a chit about education funding and the general welfare of your common man. Raise minimum wage to a living wage. Increase medicare and social security. But No.. we all know Pro life voters really dont give a crap about a child once its born.

It's not abortion. The babies are born alive.

Wayne, I'll try again here to have an actual conversation.

If a baby is born alive, it's outside the womb, the umbilical cord is cut, it's breathing on its own...is that a person at that point?

If not, when is it a person? When does the mother no longer have the right to choose to end the life?

Jim you’re making up a story.. suggesting that this happens or if this happens the doctor smashes the baby’s head ..
You and Republicans can’t show any incidents of your version of events have ever occurred

Jim you’re making up a story.. suggesting that this happens or if this happens the doctor smashes the baby’s head ..
You and Republicans can’t show any incidents of your version of events have ever occurred

you’re dodging..completely.

I know the doctor doesn’t smash the babies head. But the babies are allowed to whither and die, when we know in some cases they can be saved with care.

The bill says that if the baby is born, reasonable care is provided, as it would be provided to any other patient in that situation.

you’re saying this has never happened? there are no babies who survive abortion?

Wow, it is almost like pro-life voters are actually starting to care about welfare of children after birth. This is a good start. Once they start caring more, they might as well start voting democrat. Next they should start giving a chit about education funding and the general welfare of your common man. Raise minimum wage to a living wage. Increase medicare and social security. But No.. we all know Pro life voters really dont give a crap about a child once its born.

and if data didn’t show that conservatives are just as charitable as liberals, just as likely to donate money and time to charity, you’d have a point. since the data does show conservatives are no less charitable ( actually slightly more charitable), you have no point.

i care about the quality of education. you care about how much money we spend on education. they aren’t the same thing.

When you can show me data that suggests students perform better when teachers have cadillac pensions instead of modest pensions, ill
be convinced. But there is no data that comes close to suggesting that.

my kids catholic middle school spends $5,500 per kid. In the city of hartford, they spend more than $19,000 per kid. Where do you suppose the better education is?

When democrats start to actually care about education ( instead of caring about enriching teachers unions), they’ll support school choice.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall reiterated Wednesday that women inside the state can be prosecuted for taking abortion pills

Another example of a conservative Republican hypocrite. They'll continue to argue, whine, and cry about having 'Less Government', but will instill more government control over the lives of Americans that don't swear to their perverted ideologies.

That sums it up

and if data didn’t show that conservatives are just as charitable as liberals, just as likely to donate money and time to charity, you’d have a point. since the data does show conservatives are no less charitable ( actually slightly more charitable), you have no point.

i care about the quality of education. you care about how much money we spend on education. they aren’t the same thing.

When you can show me data that suggests students perform better when teachers have cadillac pensions instead of modest pensions, ill
be convinced. But there is no data that comes close to suggesting that.

my kids catholic middle school spends $5,500 per kid. In the city of hartford, they spend more than $19,000 per kid. Where do you suppose the better education is?

When democrats start to actually care about education ( instead of caring about enriching teachers unions), they’ll support school choice.


Jim stop moving the goal post this is thread is about your topic . Not you fan favorites conservatives give more or bashing teachers retirement benefits and school choice

Have zero support to counter what Nebe said “But No.. we all know Pro life voters really dont give a crap about a child once its born.”

But the gop wanting to cut social welfare benefits actually supports Nebe comment

and if data didn’t show that conservatives are just as charitable as liberals, just as likely to donate money and time to charity, you’d have a point. since the data does show conservatives are no less charitable ( actually slightly more charitable), you have no point.



Actually he does have a point and you missed it totally. He never once mentioned charity. He said:

"Next they should start giving a chit about education funding and the general welfare of your common man. Raise minimum wage to a living wage. Increase medicare and social security."

Charity is never going to make up for increased funding (ie taxes).

Actually he does have a point and you missed it totally. He never once mentioned charity. He said:

"Next they should start giving a chit about education funding and the general welfare of your common man. Raise minimum wage to a living wage. Increase medicare and social security."

Charity is never going to make up for increased funding (ie taxes).

"Actually he does have a point and you missed it totally. He never once mentioned charity. "

He also said something else, it was actually his first sentence. And you missed it totally.

"Wow, it is almost like pro-life voters are actually starting to care about welfare of children after birth."

The tired, intellectually-bankrupt bumper sticker that says conservatives care about people until they are born. It's simple, it's catchy, it demonizes your opposition. Unfortunately, it's also stupid and demonstrably false. But your side keeps bleating it like good little sheep.

"Raise minimum wage to a living wage"

Stupid. Obviously, not every job is meant to provide a living wage that someone can support himself, or a family on. For gods sake Paul, go to your local pub or pizzeria, and tell the owner that you'd like him to pay his busboys and cashiers a wage that can support an adult in a super expensive place like CT. Report back what he says. Unless you're ready to pay $75 for a pizza, it's just not possible. Again, saying "raise the minimum wage" is simple, it sounds great, but unless you have a plan to help business owners deal with the massive increased labor costs, it's intellectually bankrupt. Liberals act like every business is owned by a billionaire. Most small businesses have fairly tight profit margins.

"Charity is never going to make up for increased funding (ie taxes)."

Yes, because government is always better at everything, than individuals are!

Paul, the government can't help anyone, when they're broke. Here in the liberal utopia of CT, there is tons and tons of tax dollars going to Hartford every single year. Yet vital social services are cut every single year. And it will get far worse in the near future as the union benefits actually become due to retiring Baby Boomers.

Because our state government isn't using that fortune to help needy people, like you would do with it (I know that's what you would do with it). They give it all to the labor unions that got them elected, and gave a ton to somebody to build the jillion dollar busway that nobody rides...and badly needed social programs can fight for the scraps.

You probably know someone who works for a state agency that relies on tax dollars to provide services that poor people actually need, like DCF. Ask them how state funding is trending. It's brutal.

Private charities are way, way more efficient and helpful. Because unlike state government in CT, they aren't wholly-owned subsidiaries of the teachers union.

Actually he does have a point and you missed it totally. He never once mentioned charity. He said:

"Next they should start giving a chit about education funding and the general welfare of your common man. Raise minimum wage to a living wage. Increase medicare and social security."

Charity is never going to make up for increased funding (ie taxes).

To the topic of this thread, same question to you...

When would you say a baby becomes a human being, whose life is no longer something the mother can choose to snuff out for her own convenience?

Because 210 of 212 house democrats, say that just after birth, the baby still isn't a human being.

None of the lefties will attempt answering that.

Have zero support to counter what Nebe said “But No.. we all know Pro life voters really dont give a crap about a child once its born.”

t

I have all the support in the world to counter that.

The data shows that conservatives are as charitable as liberals (slightly more so, actually), in terms of donating time or money to charity.

Here, the right wing nuts at the New York Times, publish the results of a study that destroys the argument that you and Nebe attempted to make.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

Go ahead wayne, tell us I still have zero support to counter what you guys said.

"we all know Pro life voters really dont give a crap about a child once its born.”

Right. The side that gives more money to charity, which advocates for traditional family values because every study shows that's what's best for kids, the side that advocates for school choice, that side doesn't care about children.

Is there any chance you can answer the question that's relevant to this topic? When do you believe a baby becomes a human being? Because Nancy Pelosi says it's still not a person, immediately after birth. She explicitly said it's life is still up to the mom to choose.

Wow, it is almost like pro-life voters are actually starting to care about welfare of children after birth. This is a good start. Once they start caring more, they might as well start voting democrat. Next they should start giving a chit about education funding and the general welfare of your common man. Raise minimum wage to a living wage. Increase medicare and social security. But No.. we all know Pro life voters really dont give a crap about a child once its born.

Explain this study, please...from the NY Times, it shows a study that shows that conservatives are actually more charitable than liberals, despite making less money than liberals.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

To the topic of this thread, same question to you...

When would you say a baby becomes a human being, whose life is no longer something the mother can choose to snuff out for her own convenience?

Because 210 of 212 house democrats, say that just after birth, the baby still isn't a human being.

None of the lefties will attempt answering that.

What does that have to do with you misreading his post?

"Actually he does have a point and you missed it totally. He never once mentioned charity. "

He also said something else, it was actually his first sentence. And you missed it totally. I didn't miss anything.


"Wow, it is almost like pro-life voters are actually starting to care about welfare of children after birth."Love the fetus, could care less about the baby.

The tired, intellectually-bankrupt bumper sticker that says conservatives care about people until they are born. It's simple, it's catchy, it demonizes your opposition. Unfortunately, it's also stupid and demonstrably false. But your side keeps bleating it like good little sheep.Funny, go back and read thousands upon thousands of your posts. You demonize everyone you disagree with.
Look at the words you call people here.

"Raise minimum wage to a living wage"

Stupid. Obviously, not every job is meant to provide a living wage that someone can support himself, or a family on. For gods sake Paul, go to your local pub or pizzeria, and tell the owner that you'd like him to pay his busboys and cashiers a wage that can support an adult in a super expensive place like CT. Report back what he says. Unless you're ready to pay $75 for a pizza, it's just not possible. Again, saying "raise the minimum wage" is simple, it sounds great, but unless you have a plan to help business owners deal with the massive increased labor costs, it's intellectually bankrupt. Liberals act like every business is owned by a billionaire. Most small businesses have fairly tight profit margins.

"Charity is never going to make up for increased funding (ie taxes)."

Yes, because government is always better at everything, than individuals are!

Paul, the government can't help anyone, when they're broke. Here in the liberal utopia of CT, there is tons and tons of tax dollars going to Hartford every single year. Yet vital social services are cut every single year. And it will get far worse in the near future as the union benefits actually become due to retiring Baby Boomers.

Because our state government isn't using that fortune to help needy people, like you would do with it (I know that's what you would do with it). They give it all to the labor unions that got them elected, and gave a ton to somebody to build the jillion dollar busway that nobody rides...and badly needed social programs can fight for the scraps.

You probably know someone who works for a state agency that relies on tax dollars to provide services that poor people actually need, like DCF. Ask them how state funding is trending. It's brutal.

Private charities are way, way more efficient and helpful. Because unlike state government in CT, they aren't wholly-owned subsidiaries of the teachers union.

The Rs have a long history of trying to cut social services and funding to poor people. I've posted up lots of examples.

Maybe all those babies born to poor families should pull themselves up by the bootstraps instead of depending on the govern!

Explain this study, please...from the NY Times, it shows a study that shows that conservatives are actually more charitable than liberals, despite making less money than liberals.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

He didn't mention charity, you're trying to assign something he didn't say to fit your narrative.

Plus as we have discussed many many times and you have agreed, the difference is related to giving $ to churches/private schools which both have far higher % going to expenses than say save the children.

He didn't mention charity, you're trying to assign something he didn't say to fit your narrative.

Plus as we have discussed many many times and you have agreed, the difference is related to giving $ to churches/private schools which both have far higher % going to expenses than say save the children.

he mentioned “welfare” Paul ( which last time i checked, wasn’t limited to education) and then wdmso jumped on that bandwagon and said republicans don’t care about people after birth.

why not let him answer, instead of incorrectly portraying what he said?

go through it as many times as you want. if you reduce conservative donations to churches ( which is stupid as churches do a lot of charity), then you also have to adjust for things like liberals giving donations to harvard.

Youd adjust conservative donations down, and act like every penny that every liberal donates, feeds a starving person.

You’re not holding any cards. And you still
won’t answer
my question. how come?

he mentioned “welfare” Paul ( which last time i checked, wasn’t limited to education) and then wdmso jumped on that bandwagon and said republicans don’t care about people after birth.

why not let him answer, instead of incorrectly portraying what he said? You are the one who "incorrectly portrayed" what was said, not me! He never mentioned charity but you tried to shift the discussion to charity.

go through it as many times as you want. if you reduce conservative donations to churches ( which is stupid as churches do a lot of charity)Where did I say that?, then you also have to adjust for things like liberals giving donations to harvard. Go right ahead but far more people give $ to churches than schools and both Rs and Ds give $ to both.

Youd adjust conservative donations down, and act like every penny that every liberal donates, feeds a starving person. Where did I ever do anything close to that? You know the difference is tiny but you frequently bring up the donation stat with this time being one of the few mentioning the difference isn't that big.

You’re not holding any cards. If you think so but I showed you where you assigned something to NEBE that he never said - similiar to what you tried to do to me a few times in the post I just quoted. And you still
won’t answer
my question. how come?

If everyone responded to everything you said, John would finally have to update his server.

If everyone responded to everything you said, John would finally have to update his server.

"You are the one who "incorrectly portrayed" what was said, not me! He never mentioned charity"

He said "welfare". That is not synonymous with education., Giving to charity, is helping improve the welfare of others. If you want to disagree with that because I don't vote the same was as you, knock yourself out.

"Where did I say that?"

You said that the data makes conservatives look more generous than they are, because they give to organizations that aren't dedicated to helping the poor. And that's true. But obviously democrats do that too of course, and you never, ever mentioned that. Not once. You always mentioned that the data skewed conservatives in a more favorable light. Well your side gives plenty to Ivy League endowments that don't need it, things like that. So if you want to focus on giving to actual charities, how come you always single out conservatives? No matter how you slice it, it's nonsense to say conservatives don't care about people. But it's better than most of the arguments that support your side, I guess.

Here's what you said,,,"the difference is related to giving $ to churches/private schools"

If you're going to adjust the data to remove giving to organizations that aren't really charities, you have to do it to both sides. Not just to conservatives.

"If everyone responded to everything you said, John would finally have to update his server."

Shameless coward. You won't answer, because there's only 2 possibilities...either you think life begins at birth, and you can't bring yourself to say that 210 of 212 house democrats just supported what you consider to be infanticde. Or. you support how they voted, in which case you don't want to admit that you're OK with something so ghoulish.

SO instead of answering, you go on crusade to try to show that giving to charity, has little in common with caring about peoples welfare. You're saying that supporting higher taxes is a better indicator of caring for the welfare of others,. that's really brilliant. Because places with the highest taxes (New York City, CT, CA) have eliminated human suffering.

You said that private charities don't give high expense ratios and therefore don't give enough to the actual needy? I'd love to see an accurate study that compares what % of each dollar donated to the catholic church goes to charity, versus a dollar given to the state of CT.

The thread is about that vote. Too bad you couldn't bring yourself to comment on it.

Shameless coward.

Ok douchebag

Ok douchebag

Paul, you dodged my question, you claimed that giving to charity has nothing to do with being concerned for the welfare of others. I call's 'em like I see's 'em.

Not one of you had the honesty to answer that question. Not one. What does that say about your collective beliefs? Why can't you just say, "I'm a liberal, but I have to admit I don't like that vote". Or else say "I think it's OK to let babies whither and die who are usually suffering from injuries they received during an abortion, guilty of the crime of not being wanted".

how does this vote reflect on the lefts concern for the well being of others? if the others are babies who survived abortion, would those babies take a lot of comfort that Nebe and WDMSO sau that only democrats care about others?

pete, you have said here, that you support abortion up until the moment of birth. This is subsequent to birth, it’s after the birth

I’ll ask you the same question i asked GS and WDMSO. which neither has answered.

When does the baby become a human with a right to life that’s not within the mothers ability to choose to snuff out?

because 210 democrats in the house, say that doesn’t happen right after birth. Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris were crystal clear, that mothers should be able to retain the right to choose to end the life of the baby, after the baby is born. Another term for that, is infanticide.

Actually Jim, what people say is that women and their medical professionals should be able to decide what to do.
Of course if the medical professional is one of the ones who ignores the Hippocratic oath, like the ones who administer drugs to kill people sentenced to death then it could happen.
Then again so could a brain transplant.
You however are convinced that politicians know more than doctors.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have all the support in the world to counter that.

The data shows that conservatives are as charitable as liberals (slightly more so, actually), in terms of donating time or money to charity.

Here, the right wing nuts at the New York Times, publish the results of a study that destroys the argument that you and Nebe attempted to make.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

Go ahead wayne, tell us I still have zero support to counter what you guys said.

"we all know Pro life voters really dont give a crap about a child once its born.”

Right. The side that gives more money to charity, which advocates for traditional family values because every study shows that's what's best for kids, the side that advocates for school choice, that side doesn't care about children.

Is there any chance you can answer the question that's relevant to this topic? When do you believe a baby becomes a human being? Because Nancy Pelosi says it's still not a person, immediately after birth. She explicitly said it's life is still up to the mom to choose.

conservatives are charitable

Jim please show us all how this charity has anything to do with or is attached to helping single mothers who choose not to have an abortion or support babies a born and put up for adoption .

opinion’s are not evidence unless you support the writer’s views

your link is just someone’s opinion
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

conservatives are charitable

Jim please show us all how this charity has anything to do with or is attached to helping single mothers who choose not to have an abortion or support babies a born and put up for adoption .

opinion’s are not evidence unless you support the writer’s views

your link is just someone’s opinion
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ok, you’re saying you don’t believe that conservatives give to charities that help poor single
mothers. You’re exactly right wayne, we give to charities that help rich married couples.

you are not persuadable by facts.

“opinions are not evidence”

right! you never so out opinions without evidence, you never agree with the opinions of your fellow liberals i less they provide hard facts.

nene provided no evidence that conservatives don’t care about others welfare. but you agreed with him. you don’t say “show
me the evidence.”

you are hysterical. just google “catholic adoption services” and you’ll see catholic charities that help the exact women you mention.

good grief.

Jim’s “evidence”

“So, you’ve guessed it! This column is a transparent attempt this holiday season to shame liberals into being more charitable. Since I often scold Republicans for being callous in their policies toward the needy, it seems only fair to reproach Democrats for being cheap in their private donations. What I want for Christmas is a healthy competition between left and right to see who actually does more for the neediest.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Republicans and Democrats give roughly equal amounts to religious organisations aside from their own congregations, and we also find some evidence that Democrats donate more to non-religious organisations than Republicans. In other words, the baseline difference in charitable giving emerges because Republicans are more religious than Democrats, and religious people donate generously to their religious congregations.

So in a nutshell Conservatives are more generous to themselves

Top 10 US philanthropists Warren Buffett, George Soros Bill Gates Michael Bloomberg, Chuck family Charles Koch, Jeff Bezos Phil Knight, David Koch
6-4 liberals win
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Republicans and Democrats give roughly equal amounts to religious organisations aside from their own congregations, and we also find some evidence that Democrats donate more to non-religious organisations than Republicans. In other words, the baseline difference in charitable giving emerges because Republicans are more religious than Democrats, and religious people donate generously to their religious congregations.

So in a nutshell Conservatives are more generous to themselves

Top 10 US philanthropists Warren Buffett, George Soros Bill Gates Michael Bloomberg, Chuck family Charles Koch, Jeff Bezos Phil Knight, David Koch
6-4 liberals win
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"So in a nutshell Conservatives are more generous to themselves "

That can only be true, if you assume that money given to a church, benefits the person who made the donation. What you said can only be true, if the church doesnt spend a single penny on actual charity.

I'm the treasurer of the PTO at my kids school. The church donates money to the school so that a small number of poor kids can attend, who could never afford the tuition.

My church, that Catholic church, operates soup kitchens, homeless shelters, hospitals, that provide services to the poor. The money to fund those services, comes from donations. Therefore, when I put money in the basket on Sundays, some of that money is benefitting myself (the church might get a fresh paint job, or a new furnace), but some of that money is obviously benefitting others besides myself.

The notion that people only give to a church to benefit themselves...that's stupid, even for you.

"op 10 US philanthropists Warren Buffett, George Soros Bill Gates Michael Bloomberg, Chuck family Charles Koch, Jeff Bezos Phil Knight, David Koch
6-4 liberals win"

So a sample of ten people, in a country of 330 million, is a representative sample? Wow.

Desperate and pathetic.

And not ONE of you could just say when you think life begins. How can you have a position on abortion, if you can't say when life begins?

The intellectual cowardice and dishonesty is stunning. You're all exactly the same, not a speck of daylight between you.

And not ONE of you could just say when you think life begins. How can you have a position on abortion, if you can't say when life begins?

The intellectual cowardice and dishonesty is stunning. You're all exactly the same, not a speck of daylight between you.

We do have a position, it should be up to the woman and her doctors. We don't, or I don't feel like playing the Jim circle game.

We do have a position, it should be up to the woman and her doctors. We don't, or I don't feel like playing the Jim circle game.

I guess I am a baby killer supporter because I don’t condemn women or families who make that gut wrenching choice. Thankfully I never had to make . And abortion would never be and never has been a consideration for me or members of my family.
Not because we’re religious not because we are Financially stable .

It’s just always been I don’t see myself that arrogant enough to think it’s any of my business and some how I know what’s best for people faced with that situation we’re they consider such choice

But then again look at those on the right so concerned about the unborn
These same people went Berserk when asked to wear a Mask that love of life went out the window. But even that they Intertwined into the abortion argument…. :sleeps::sleeps:

I guess I am a baby killer supporter because I don’t condemn women or families who make that gut wrenching choice. Thankfully I never had to make . And abortion would never be and never has been a consideration for me or members of my family.I can't imagine having to make that decision.
Not because we’re religious not because we are Financially stable .

It’s just always been I don’t see myself that arrogant enough to think it’s any of my business and some how I know what’s best for people faced with that situation we’re they consider such choice

But then again look at those on the right so concerned about the unborn
These same people went Berserk when asked to wear a Mask that love of life went out the window. But even that they Intertwined into the abortion argument…. :sleeps::sleeps:

Well said

Which states have the highest rate of child poverty

States with the greatest percentage of children living in poverty:

1. Mississippi – 27.6%

2. Louisiana – 26.3%

3. New Mexico – 25.6%

4. West Virginia – 23.1%

5. Alabama – 22.7%

6. Kentucky – 22.2%

7. Arkansas – 22%

8. South Carolina – 21.2%

9. Tennessee – 20.8%

10. Oklahoma – 20.7%

Which states have the lowest

1. New Hampshire – 8.9%

2. Utah – 9.9%

3. North Dakota – 11.1%

4. Colorado – 11.5%

5. Minnesota – 11.6%

6. Maryland – 11.6%

7. Hawaii – 11.7%
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Which states have the highest rate of child poverty

States with the greatest percentage of children living in poverty:

1. Mississippi – 27.6%

2. Louisiana – 26.3%

3. New Mexico – 25.6%

4. West Virginia – 23.1%

5. Alabama – 22.7%

6. Kentucky – 22.2%

7. Arkansas – 22%

8. South Carolina – 21.2%

9. Tennessee – 20.8%

10. Oklahoma – 20.7%

Which states have the lowest

1. New Hampshire – 8.9%

2. Utah – 9.9%

3. North Dakota – 11.1%

4. Colorado – 11.5%

5. Minnesota – 11.6%

6. Maryland – 11.6%

7. Hawaii – 11.7%
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sara’s on the job in Arkansas. She banned Latinx and CRT nothing on child poverty

wayne, a very common liberal point in abortion, goes something like “if moms can’t have abortions, who’s going to help them take care of the babies they didn’t want.”

have liberals never heard of adoption? in this country, unwanted babies don’t languish in foster care, there’s a huge waiting list of people
desperate to adopt.

So why don’t you assume that adoption would meaningfully lessen the burden on women who don’t want to care for babies? your side never, ever gives adoption any consideration.

Sara’s on the job in Arkansas. She banned Latinx and CRT nothing on child poverty

FFS you just recently said you have no interest in opinions without facts. So either show us some facts that show that a huge majority of religious charity goes to republicans versus democrats, or drop it.

This is one of the stupidest paths you’ve ever gone down

even if you remove religious donations altogether, conservative generosity doesn’t drop anywhere close to zero. so even if you remove it altogether, the data shows that conservatives care about the well
being of the needy.

Trump did more for blacks, without question, than any president who ever came before him. When he mentioned record low black unemployment at his state of the union, do you remember what happened? the republicans went berserk, the democrats all
sat on their hands, bitter and miserable.

George W Bush, also called a racist by your side, spearheaded an AIDS initiative i. africa that stanford university says saved over one million lives. But he’s a republican, so according to you, he doesn’t care about anyone other than himself and other republicans.

Trump did more for blacks, without question, than any president who ever came before him.



You're going to say that black unemployment was at its lowest which I guess somebody could say Trump did more for Racist, perverts and every other deviant because they're unemployment went down also during his term.

Then for like the 50th time your going to say Enterprise zones so Pete or Wayne or myself can pull up articles showing how they really didn't benefit urban areas but benefited the people who invested in them.

So what exactly did he Specifically do to lower black unemployment and can you post up any documentation showing that it lowered Black unemployment?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wayne, a very common liberal point in abortion, goes something like “if moms can’t have abortions, who’s going to help them take care of the babies they didn’t want.”

have liberals never heard of adoption? in this country, unwanted babies don’t languish in foster care, there’s a huge waiting list of people
desperate to adopt.

So why don’t you assume that adoption would meaningfully lessen the burden on women who don’t want to care for babies? your side never, ever gives adoption any consideration.

Your ilk thinks that adoption is a free ride for the mother, with no ramifications.

Lots of things have been happening over the past fifty years to reduce abortion numbers, while adoption is one of them, access to birth control and sex education also played a major role.
The major mission of Planned Parenthood has never been being only an abortion provider as your ilk paints them.
Tell me more about how the Catholic Church promotes birth control and sex education, I’m listening?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Tell me more about how the Catholic Church promotes birth control and sex education, I’m listening?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

From what I’ve heard, the priest takes the young boys into his office and teaches them the ropes.

FFS you just recently said you have no interest in opinions without facts. So either show us some facts that show that a huge majority of religious charity goes to republicans versus democrats, or drop it.

This is one of the stupidest paths you’ve ever gone down

even if you remove religious donations altogether, conservative generosity doesn’t drop anywhere close to zero. so even if you remove it altogether, the data shows that conservatives care about the well
being of the needy.

Trump did more for blacks, without question, than any president who ever came before him. When he mentioned record low black unemployment at his state of the union, do you remember what happened? the republicans went berserk, the democrats all
sat on their hands, bitter and miserable.

George W Bush, also called a racist by your side, spearheaded an AIDS initiative i. africa that stanford university says saved over one million lives. But he’s a republican, so according to you, he doesn’t care about anyone other than himself and other republicans.

Have you ever looked at a picture of Republicans?
You think those white faces are representative of the American people?
Apparently black people aren’t as easily gaslit as poorly educated whites in Republican states.
Why would they want to throw in with the people who self admitted that they’re less educated and have less opportunity to get ahead?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You wonder why there’s few Republicans of color?

“We can be especially proud of the City of Milwaukee (80.2% Dem Vote) casting 37,000 less votes than cast in the 2018 election with the major reduction happening in the overwhelming Black and Hispanic areas.” — Wisconsin Republican official Robert Spindell
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

From what I’ve heard, the priest takes the young boys into his office and teaches them the ropes.

That’s only 5% of the priests, the rest do nothing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wayne, a very common liberal point in abortion, goes something like “if moms can’t have abortions, who’s going to help them take care of the babies they didn’t want.”

have liberals never heard of adoption? in this country, unwanted babies don’t languish in foster care, there’s a huge waiting list of people
desperate to adopt.

So why don’t you assume that adoption would meaningfully lessen the burden on women who don’t want to care for babies? your side never, ever gives adoption any consideration.
Jim, you’re clueless all my friends that I know that adopted babies had to go to China or Russia what’s that tell you
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

FFS you just recently said you have no interest in opinions without facts. So either show us some facts that show that a huge majority of religious charity goes to republicans versus democrats, or drop it.

This is one of the stupidest paths you’ve ever gone

even if you remove religious donations altogether, conservative generosity doesn’t drop anywhere close to zero. so even if you remove it altogether, the data shows that conservatives care about the well
being of the needy.

Trump did more for blacks, without question, than any president who ever came before him. When he mentioned record low black unemployment at his state of the union, do you remember what happened? the republicans went berserk, the democrats all
sat on their hands, bitter and miserable.

George W Bush, also called a racist by your side, spearheaded an AIDS initiative i. africa that stanford university says saved over one million lives. But he’s a republican, so according to you, he doesn’t care about anyone other than himself and other republicans.

I guess you missed the part over talk about Arkansas and child poverty, but don’t worry can’t say Latinx in Arkansas
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're going to say that black unemployment was at its lowest which I guess somebody could say Trump did more for Racist, perverts and every other deviant because they're unemployment went down also during his term.

Then for like the 50th time your going to say Enterprise zones so Pete or Wayne or myself can pull up articles showing how they really didn't benefit urban areas but benefited the people who invested in them.

So what exactly did he Specifically do to lower black unemployment and can you post up any documentation showing that it lowered Black unemployment?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump did nothing for black unemployment directly it was lower for everybody, so by de facto, it was lower for blacks as well

But disingenuous, Jim can’t accept that rationale
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device