Are you suggesting only liberals and communists have abortions?
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/anti-abortion-rep-tim-murphy-asked-mistress-terminate/story?id=50274843
Ahh the old 'tax dollar' maxim... Anti abortionists take a fiscal view about it as well in some cases a moral (if not medically accurate) view. Yet the flip side that moral outrage isn't extended to postpartum children, why is that? Not so much as a squeak when a five year old is killed or a classroom full of students. No, the reason is nothing to do with concern for a foetus, it's just a way to hit women who want to have control of their own biology. It is no surprise that it's overwhelmingly men who make laws on abortion. I doubt somehow they'd make such laws if men carried children.
The fiscal view? Again, it's because it's women. Because if it wasn't, there'd be any number of reasons to rail against perceived misspending of 'tax dollars'...Such as the tax cuts last year to the top 1% who enjoyed 85% of the proceeds. That represents over $285 BILLION of our money going to the top 1% who did nothing to earn it apart from lobby the government. I object strongly that Trump has run up over $100 Million on his golfing trips..How many abortions would that pay for, or even school books, teachers, classroom refurbishments?
I knew I could count on you, Pud.
No, I don't suggest that only communists and liberals have abortions. I suggest (I thought quite clearly) that communists and liberals would support
both killing children before reaching maturity (i.e. abortion)
and feeding children to ensure their survival to maturity (i.e. free lunch programs). Which seems to be illogical and contradictory.
To address your "tax dollar maxim," I think you missed my point. I perhaps made the logical fallacy of assuming that since the lunches were free the abortions would be free as well. To my knowledge the "free lunch program" doesn't discriminate based on income. I don't believe they turn kids away based on the parents income, if a kid shows up they get a free lunch (Bill Gatez adopted African rug-rats included.) That seems fair and just to me, anything else would be non-inclusive.
I fail to follow the logic of your argument that support of both abortions and free-lunch programs has anything to do with money. You do touch on a moral argument briefly but fail to expand on it in a logical manner that explains how support of both makes sense.ediot:
in keeping with your rhetorical style I offer the following possibly contradictory questions and statementsDoes it make sense to restrict either lunches for non-adults or the abortion of non-adults based on fiscal considerations? Only adults who can afford to feed or kill their offspring should be allowed to do so? Or society at large shall assume the adult responsibility for proper disposition of non-adults, whether that be feeding or aborting them? I don't get how one could logically support both?
Rich people should be given access to free abortions and free lunches for their children, other wise you are excluding people based on their income. In fact, if there are free lunches for kids and free abortions available, they should be available to everyone free of restrictions! No one wants to be a poverty elitist, shouldn't the rich folks be encouraged to take advantage of the free programs out there?
