CDC: Abortion Rates in U.S. Hits Historic Low

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

That’s good but not good enough we must ban abortion in all cases!

And then once they're born and the parents can't afford to feed or cloth them they should just die because helping them live with money would be dirty socialism, am I right?

Let's take a scenario:

-Person A is about to set a building on fire.
-Person B else points out that there are people in the building, thus setting it on fire would amount to murder.
-Person C then informs person B that the people in the building are poor, and then derides person B for not volunteering to pay the medical bills of the people in the building.  Person C then proudly proceeds to praise person A for the wonderful service he does for the community and stops person B from preventing arson.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

That’s good but not good enough we must ban abortion in all cases!

And then once they're born and the parents can't afford to feed or cloth them they should just die because helping them live with money would be dirty socialism, am I right?

Let's take a scenario:

-Person A is about to set a building on fire.
-Person B else points out that there are people in the building, thus setting it on fire would amount to murder.
-Person C then informs person B that the people in the building are poor, and then derides person B for not volunteering to pay the medical bills of the people in the building.  Person C then proudly proceeds to praise person A for the wonderful service he does for the community and stops person B from preventing arson.

That really doesn't take a stab at the situation. Its just means you think that abortions are like arson or that the goal is really to prevent arson or that there is a perceived need for the arson. Try again. 

It's exactly what the abortion debate is.  Pro-lifers say murder should be illegal, then pro-choicers essentially say "but you won't pay for social programs for these children" as if that justifies murder.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

That’s good but not good enough we must ban abortion in all cases!

And then once they're born and the parents can't afford to feed or cloth them they should just die because helping them live with money would be dirty socialism, am I right?

Let's take a scenario:

-Person A is about to set a building on fire.
-Person B else points out that there are people in the building, thus setting it on fire would amount to murder.
-Person C then informs person B that the people in the building are poor, and then derides person B for not volunteering to pay the medical bills of the people in the building.  Person C then proudly proceeds to praise person A for the wonderful service he does for the community and stops person B from preventing arson.

That really doesn't take a stab at the situation. Its just means you think that abortions are like arson or that the goal is really to prevent arson or that there is a perceived need for the arson. Try again. 

It's exactly what the abortion debate is.  Pro-lifers say murder should be illegal, then pro-choicers essentially say "but you won't pay for social programs for these children" as if that justifies murder.

So I'm curious. What do you propose we do with the millions of children you force into the world if you don't want to take care of them?

We will take care of them.  Private charity will do most of it, but I'd be willing to pay more money in tax dollars if its necessary.  Or, better yet, the government could come up with the money by cutting Planned Parenthood funding and part of the defense and foreign aid budgets.

But I'm almost certain that even if the pro-life side made every concession on social programs, the pro-choice side still wouldn't budge.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

We will take care of them.  Private charity will do most of it, but I'd be willing to pay more money in tax dollars if its necessary.  Or, better yet, the government could come up with the money by cutting Planned Parenthood funding and part of the defense and foreign aid budgets.

Are you willing to make the case that, right now, private charities, foster care, etc. are adequately addressing the needs of poor or impoverished children? Or more generally for all children? Many people would not; it's not a good argument that we could take care of more children in need if we aren't doing a good job of fixing child poverty and other related issues right now.

Also, a pitifully small amount (in the neighborhood of 3%) of funding to Planned Parenthood goes to abortion services. They provide other services for women, such as disease testing, family planning, and birth control services. If you want to suggest a hypothetical where there are more children in need of support, you would want to increase Planned Parenthood's funding, not decrease it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think this is correct.

I don't think we will ever be able to care for all the impoverished children.  But as a society what we can do to help is to encourage men to only have sex with one woman, and to stay with her to help raise children.  There needs to be a change in society, and I hope that one day the consequences of the sexual revolution can be reversed.  That will help more than charity or government programs.  As for Planned Parenthood, they are an organization that has murdered millions and are staunch advocates of legal murder, they should receive no funding.

Regardless, a fetus is alive, it is the same being that it will be if it lives to be a 90 year old.  It contains the genetic information of the mother and the father.  How can ending its life not be murder?  This isn't part of a political game, I'm increasingly disillusioned with the GOP and I have no love for Trump.  Ending abortion would severely damage the Republican Party as it would lose a wedge issue and the babies saved from abortion would probably be future Democrats (in fact, I've seen people use this as an argument for abortion).