Lon
Well-known member
Great. Now I've got that tune in my noggin for a bit. :mmph:
This one?
Great. Now I've got that tune in my noggin for a bit. :mmph:
The Rising Costs of Having a Child
A recent U.S. Department of Agriculture report pegged the cost of having a baby– and raising that child to adulthood – at $245,340 in 2014. This estimate includes a rough calculation of the costs of food, housing, childcare and education, and other child-rearing expenses up to age 18.
To see how marketplace coverage would help a family cover the costs of delivery, let’s look at an example. The following scenario outlines how much a silver marketplace plan would cost without subsidies for a couple, both age 35, in Hamilton County, Indiana.
•Premiums: $580 for a couple per month, or $6,960 for the year.
•Deductible: $5,000 annually.
•Co-insurance: 30%. This means 70% is covered by insurance and you’ll pay 30% of each medical bill out-of-pocket until you reach your annual out-of-pocket max.
•Out-of-pocket maximum: The annual out-of-pocket max for this particular silver plan is $11,000.
http://www.thesimpledollar.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-have-a-baby/
Pro-life or Pro-choice
Even if Roe v Wade was reversed tomorrow, there is no way that "THE STATE" can force a woman to have a full term pregnancy against he will!
International studies have shown that government legislation has little to do with the abortion rate!
With the high costs of health insurance and having a baby, coupled with unforeseen medical complications and the current uncertainty about the state of healthcare in America, all contribute to the misgivings young women will experience about having a child in America!
You mean they aren't necessarily pro life as you define it.People who are opposed to abortion are not "pro-life".
Certainly anti the choice to end life and therefore pro birth.They are ANTI-CHOICE . Pro BIRTH .
I'm also for forcing people who are swinging an ax at your head to stop doing that. Or, for forcing them to let go of the ax before they hurt someone. You, for instance.FORCED birth .
Rather, they largely are. They are for abortions where the woman desires it, to one extent or another.People who are pro-choice are not "pro-abortion ".
Nah. No one has to be for a woman's right to have a baby, so there's only one choice they're really supporting.They are pro CHOICE .
People who are opposed to abortion are not "pro-life". They are ANTI-CHOICE .
Wizard of Oz, I'm wearing this as a badge of honor !
People who are opposed to abortion are not "pro-life".
They are ANTI-CHOICE . Pro BIRTH . FORCED birth .
People who are pro-choice are not "pro-abortion ". They are pro CHOICE .
You wish to keep it legal AND you promote it as a valid option. THAT is pro-abortion.
If an individual is opposed to abortion being an option in all scenarios except for rape or incest or incest rape, is that individual pro-life or pro-choice?
Whether you are pro- or anti-, you can make the world a better place in your opinion by recognising the value of the middle positions over the disliked extreme.
I guess maybe euthanasia is the next logical push for abortion lovers.
Just there — you are turning the topic all black and white on me again. I suspect that there are very few abortion lovers, but it suits you to class all infavour of legal abortions as being at the extreme end regardless of the nuances of opinion that people hold.
There is much to be lost for the anti-abortion folks by refusing to recognise that there is some middle ground that might be better than one of the extremes.
The middle ground is pro-choice. Why would the varying degrees of choices matter to anyone who is pro-life? That's the point of the OP.
Just there — you are turning the topic all black and white on me again. I suspect that there are very few abortion lovers, but it suits you to class all infavour of legal abortions as being at the extreme end regardless of the nuances of opinion that people hold.
Because valuing someone's change of opinion from "all abortions ok" to "only for medical reasons" would save, in your terms, lots of lives.
Why allow the pursuit of abolishment to stop you achieving reductions?
Anyone that believes abortion must remain legal, is an abortion lover. They see it as the highest good - a right to be protected, equal to the right to life (the life of a born person, of course). If you see abortion as a fundamental human right, it's accurate to say you love abortion.
Yes, that's right.
Why would the pursuit of abolition preclude reduction?