That could be the beginning of an interesting debate, involving such things as higher suicide rates for men, lower life expectancy, higher rates of heart disease, VASTLY higher death rates in war, etc etc. But not the topic here. More say so? or ALL the say so. Because currently it is the latter, and there is a gigantic difference between the two. It is also debatable as to whether the presumption of more responsibility is actually true, as Rocket River pointed out. If someone is truly responsible for something, they can't just opt out.
That statement is both true and false. What one woman considers better another woman might consider worse. I think there are some metrics that we would agree are pretty much universal. There are others that are individual.
2 people involved and one fetus, which some believe is a person (fair enough). I extend to 4 parties are involved. The 2 people, the fetus and the state. The state can have a vested interest. Purely imaginary... in some distance future, where there is a 90% accurate prediction on the impact to the state from each potential person prior to birth, it is in the interest of the state to abort and to not abort some fetuses based on their very accurate prediction. Allowing the state to regulate reproductive rights open up this and similar possibility.
Actually, it is that very reason the state shouldn't be involved. That leads down a VERY slippery slope, with all kinds of ramifications most people (voters) would find horrifying if they were objective about it (choosing who receives medical care, and who does not, for instance). Also consider that it is actually in state's interest for as many people to die from lung cancer as possible. People that die earlier are a much lower drain on medical expenditures. Should states therefore encourage smoking?
History . .AMERICAN History is filled with the concept of dehumanize before you victimized The main thrust behind slavery was that black people were not 'real people' 3/5ths if you would Rocket River
[Premium Post] I have always been anti-abortion/pro life, but never developed strong feelings on the issue until watching ultrasounds and observing the heartbeat of the baby at the 10-week ultrasound. The thought of snuffing out the life of the unborn baby after it develops a heartbeat is truly inhumane. It's far worse than separating children at the border, that I can assure you. There are liberals who literally are OK with aborting babies right up until they come out of the woman's body. It's unreal. Yet these same people lecture conservatives about their insensitivity when it comes to illegal immigration. What a bunch of hypocrites. The truth of the matter is that most of the liberals you see passionately advocating for abortion are young women without children, unmarried women who have been passed over, homosexuals, and men without children. These people lack the life experience to weigh in on the issue, quite honestly. GOOD DAY
Barbra boxer believes you can kill the baby all the way until it gets home from the hospital. https://www.google.com/amp/www.newsweek.com/george-will-barbara-boxers-position-abortion-74293?amp=1
You're not putting a space between [Premium Post] and the first sentence -- hit return once -- it's very distracting.
Pretty sure that like 90% of abortions are before this period? Ok, but that is at 3 weeks. If you want to get into a more complex discussion about when it is alive and what that even means, have fun. There are conservatives that think we should shoot immigrants at the border, and? It's a strawman to bring out the most extreme position and then argue against it. I'm sure there are people that think you should be able to have abortions at 7 months. I wonder how many here would argue for that...i wonder how many period would argue for that. If you want to reach a compromise you have to ignore radicals. Also, it is very hypocritical to be pro life but then basically take a stance that you don't care about what happens to children once they are out of the womb. It is possible to care for both, you know? Citation needed.
Trump has no soul. Conservatives and Republicans support Trump. Therefore conservatives and Republicans have no soul. FACT
For the middle class buying a new Ford it was great. A real boom for the middle class. For the poor it was very bad. Poverty rate higher than any time since then, way over 20%
Poor is a very relative term. Unemployment rates were very low especially in the beginning part of the decade. When i say poverty is relative, cost of living was also low in the fifties
It fell after the 1950's during the early 1960's to what we would consider normal levels of sub 20% Poverty rate takes cost of living into effect. The 50's also had two recessions. The poor were definitely left behind in the 50's. There are a ton of factors. psychology of winning a war, becoming a super power. Being much better off than in the 30's. Technology boom. It's just another reason I don't buy abortion being the reason crime dropped in the 1990's.
the right to kill the unborn is the holiest of sacraments for the left it's strange how they will go to the mattresses to defend such a reprehensible act
