re: Does this align with being pro-life? Louisiana refuses summer meal assistance for kids

quote:

---

If laws discouraged anti-social behavior, why has anti-social behavior increased exponentially?

---

It hasn't. Look up the violent crime rate since 1970.

quote:

---

Why do you make no mention of the men who impregnate these women?

---

Because they have no choice in the matter. They can't choose to kill a baby in utero. Would you like for them to be able to? If they are going to get the blame, then they need equal say, don't they?

quote:

---

Women are villainized while men get a free pass.

---

BECAUSE. WOMEN. CHOOSE. TO. KILL. THE. BABIES. IN. QUESTION. Men don't get to make that choice. In fact, men are forced by the state to comply with the women's choices financially, which they have no say in themselves.

So I am going to turn this back around on you: Why do you make no mention of men "forced" to financially support children that they may not have wanted or have the ability to afford? Why is it only for women that "forcing" them to have a baby is a financial concern?

Are you in favor of the laws that force them to do so, or are we consistent with our "no laws" viewpoint?

quote:

---

It should be.

---

Why? What do the two logically (not emotionally) have to do with each other?

quote:

---

My whole argument is that the babies MUST be a priority for ALL of society, even once they are born.

---

Then you know what else is going to have to become a priority again? The nuclear family. Having children in the context of stable marriages. Having two parents in the home.

You ready to stop incentivizing the opposite and start incentivizing the nuclear family again?

Also, and I don't know how many times I need to point this out, but killing babies in utero doesn't do anything to help people prioritize them once they are born. It only cheapens human life further.

quote:

---

But, you are insistent on painting anyone that doesn't' agree with you as "anti-baby" or whatever simplistic term you want to use.

---

Calling those of us who KNOW the solutions to these problems "mean" is in direct conflict with her assertion that God can love you and still "punish" you.

I mean we can still love someone but want to put an end to their shitty behavior, a move that MAY cause a few some slight discomfort, but in the end would be incredibly beneficial to future generations.

quote:

---

ts really hard to be 4chubbies retarded. She makes it look so easy

---

She isn't just stupid, she is nefarious as well.

She has a deep seated hatred of White men and it shows in her post History.

For the record I don’t think that whether or not the government takes care of its citizens is a moral question. There are plenty of valid reasons not to take care of anyone, starting with the work Milton Friedman did on monetary policy. That said, I do think the bloodlust and venom some of y’all feel for poor kids speaks to something rotten in your souls. I think that’s a question between you and God ultimately though, but remember that not everyone who says “Lord, Lord” will enter the Kingdom of Heaven

quote:

---

Are there no workhouses? Are there no prisons? Better they should die and decrease the surplus population

---

Pretty sure the poor parents in Dickens time weren't squeezing out kids to get a monthly check.

Also pretty sure the "poor" in his time didn't have hundred dollar shoes, smart phones and didn't waste money every month on getting hair and nails done.

quote:

---

That said, I do think the bloodlust and venom some of y’all feel for poor kids speaks to something rotten in your souls.

---

Again, a point neither of you people are picking up, how is asking the government to stop wasting money on redundant programs = bloodlust?

quote:

---

I think there is a lot of anger at poor kids in this thread.

---

Ok, please show us an example where you think the anger is directed at the kids and NOT the useless adults .

Thanks

Meh, pretty common and warmed over misrepresentation of how it all plays out.

A righteous judge would prefer a murderer have simply not murdered in the first place. He doesn't get joy out of locking people up for life but the only other option is to omit or excuse crimes. How is that justice? Isn't that what frustrates us about corruption in the legal system? Picking and choosing which crimes to prosecute and punish on an arbitrary basis? How do we feel about a judge who would dismiss a rapist without penalty simply because he or she decided to do so? We would call that judge corrupt and demand that their injustice not be tolerated and they be removed from the bench.


The judge never desired for the criminal to commit the crime and yet, the judge must uphold justice for crimes committed. The criminal has no right to accuse the judge of wrongdoing for enforcing a law the criminal willingly broke.

All that whining for nothing.