caring for babies who survive abortion

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Wow, it is almost like pro-life voters are actually starting to care about welfare of children after birth. This is a good start. Once they start caring more, they might as well start voting democrat. Next they should start giving a chit about education funding and the general welfare of your common man. Raise minimum wage to a living wage. Increase medicare and social security. But No.. we all know Pro life voters really dont give a crap about a child once its born.

and if data didn’t show that conservatives are just as charitable as liberals, just as likely to donate money and time to charity, you’d have a point. since the data does show conservatives are no less charitable ( actually slightly more charitable), you have no point.

i care about the quality of education. you care about how much money we spend on education. they aren’t the same thing.

When you can show me data that suggests students perform better when teachers have cadillac pensions instead of modest pensions, ill
be convinced. But there is no data that comes close to suggesting that.

my kids catholic middle school spends $5,500 per kid. In the city of hartford, they spend more than $19,000 per kid. Where do you suppose the better education is?

When democrats start to actually care about education ( instead of caring about enriching teachers unions), they’ll support school choice.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

and if data didn’t show that conservatives are just as charitable as liberals, just as likely to donate money and time to charity, you’d have a point. since the data does show conservatives are no less charitable ( actually slightly more charitable), you have no point.

i care about the quality of education. you care about how much money we spend on education. they aren’t the same thing.

When you can show me data that suggests students perform better when teachers have cadillac pensions instead of modest pensions, ill
be convinced. But there is no data that comes close to suggesting that.

my kids catholic middle school spends $5,500 per kid. In the city of hartford, they spend more than $19,000 per kid. Where do you suppose the better education is?

When democrats start to actually care about education ( instead of caring about enriching teachers unions), they’ll support school choice.

Jim stop moving the goal post this is thread is about your topic . Not you fan favorites conservatives give more or bashing teachers retirement benefits and school choice

Have zero support to counter what Nebe said “But No.. we all know Pro life voters really dont give a crap about a child once its born.”

But the gop wanting to cut social welfare benefits actually supports Nebe comment

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Have zero support to counter what Nebe said “But No.. we all know Pro life voters really dont give a crap about a child once its born.”

t

I have all the support in the world to counter that.

The data shows that conservatives are as charitable as liberals (slightly more so, actually), in terms of donating time or money to charity.

Here, the right wing nuts at the New York Times, publish the results of a study that destroys the argument that you and Nebe attempted to make.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/o...21kristof.html

Go ahead wayne, tell us I still have zero support to counter what you guys said.

"we all know Pro life voters really dont give a crap about a child once its born.”

Right. The side that gives more money to charity, which advocates for traditional family values because every study shows that's what's best for kids, the side that advocates for school choice, that side doesn't care about children.

Is there any chance you can answer the question that's relevant to this topic? When do you believe a baby becomes a human being? Because Nancy Pelosi says it's still not a person, immediately after birth. She explicitly said it's life is still up to the mom to choose.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I have all the support in the world to counter that.

The data shows that conservatives are as charitable as liberals (slightly more so, actually), in terms of donating time or money to charity.

Here, the right wing nuts at the New York Times, publish the results of a study that destroys the argument that you and Nebe attempted to make.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/o...21kristof.html

Go ahead wayne, tell us I still have zero support to counter what you guys said.

"we all know Pro life voters really dont give a crap about a child once its born.”

Right. The side that gives more money to charity, which advocates for traditional family values because every study shows that's what's best for kids, the side that advocates for school choice, that side doesn't care about children.

Is there any chance you can answer the question that's relevant to this topic? When do you believe a baby becomes a human being? Because Nancy Pelosi says it's still not a person, immediately after birth. She explicitly said it's life is still up to the mom to choose.

conservatives are charitable

Jim please show us all how this charity has anything to do with or is attached to helping single mothers who choose not to have an abortion or support babies a born and put up for adoption .

opinion’s are not evidence unless you support the writer’s views

your link is just someone’s opinion
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

conservatives are charitable

Jim please show us all how this charity has anything to do with or is attached to helping single mothers who choose not to have an abortion or support babies a born and put up for adoption .

opinion’s are not evidence unless you support the writer’s views

your link is just someone’s opinion
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ok, you’re saying you don’t believe that conservatives give to charities that help poor single
mothers. You’re exactly right wayne, we give to charities that help rich married couples.

you are not persuadable by facts.

“opinions are not evidence”

right! you never so out opinions without evidence, you never agree with the opinions of your fellow liberals i less they provide hard facts.

nene provided no evidence that conservatives don’t care about others welfare. but you agreed with him. you don’t say “show
me the evidence.”

you are hysterical. just google “catholic adoption services” and you’ll see catholic charities that help the exact women you mention.

good grief.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

and if data didn’t show that conservatives are just as charitable as liberals, just as likely to donate money and time to charity, you’d have a point. since the data does show conservatives are no less charitable ( actually slightly more charitable), you have no point.

Actually he does have a point and you missed it totally. He never once mentioned charity. He said:

"Next they should start giving a chit about education funding and the general welfare of your common man. Raise minimum wage to a living wage. Increase medicare and social security."

Charity is never going to make up for increased funding (ie taxes).

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Actually he does have a point and you missed it totally. He never once mentioned charity. He said:

"Next they should start giving a chit about education funding and the general welfare of your common man. Raise minimum wage to a living wage. Increase medicare and social security."

Charity is never going to make up for increased funding (ie taxes).

"Actually he does have a point and you missed it totally. He never once mentioned charity. "

He also said something else, it was actually his first sentence. And you missed it totally.

"Wow, it is almost like pro-life voters are actually starting to care about welfare of children after birth."

The tired, intellectually-bankrupt bumper sticker that says conservatives care about people until they are born. It's simple, it's catchy, it demonizes your opposition. Unfortunately, it's also stupid and demonstrably false. But your side keeps bleating it like good little sheep.

"Raise minimum wage to a living wage"

Stupid. Obviously, not every job is meant to provide a living wage that someone can support himself, or a family on. For gods sake Paul, go to your local pub or pizzeria, and tell the owner that you'd like him to pay his busboys and cashiers a wage that can support an adult in a super expensive place like CT. Report back what he says. Unless you're ready to pay $75 for a pizza, it's just not possible. Again, saying "raise the minimum wage" is simple, it sounds great, but unless you have a plan to help business owners deal with the massive increased labor costs, it's intellectually bankrupt. Liberals act like every business is owned by a billionaire. Most small businesses have fairly tight profit margins.

"Charity is never going to make up for increased funding (ie taxes)."

Yes, because government is always better at everything, than individuals are!

Paul, the government can't help anyone, when they're broke. Here in the liberal utopia of CT, there is tons and tons of tax dollars going to Hartford every single year. Yet vital social services are cut every single year. And it will get far worse in the near future as the union benefits actually become due to retiring Baby Boomers.

Because our state government isn't using that fortune to help needy people, like you would do with it (I know that's what you would do with it). They give it all to the labor unions that got them elected, and gave a ton to somebody to build the jillion dollar busway that nobody rides...and badly needed social programs can fight for the scraps.

You probably know someone who works for a state agency that relies on tax dollars to provide services that poor people actually need, like DCF. Ask them how state funding is trending. It's brutal.

Private charities are way, way more efficient and helpful. Because unlike state government in CT, they aren't wholly-owned subsidiaries of the teachers union.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Actually he does have a point and you missed it totally. He never once mentioned charity. "

He also said something else, it was actually his first sentence. And you missed it totally. I didn't miss anything.


"Wow, it is almost like pro-life voters are actually starting to care about welfare of children after birth."Love the fetus, could care less about the baby.

The tired, intellectually-bankrupt bumper sticker that says conservatives care about people until they are born. It's simple, it's catchy, it demonizes your opposition. Unfortunately, it's also stupid and demonstrably false. But your side keeps bleating it like good little sheep.Funny, go back and read thousands upon thousands of your posts. You demonize everyone you disagree with.
Look at the words you call people here.

"Raise minimum wage to a living wage"

Stupid. Obviously, not every job is meant to provide a living wage that someone can support himself, or a family on. For gods sake Paul, go to your local pub or pizzeria, and tell the owner that you'd like him to pay his busboys and cashiers a wage that can support an adult in a super expensive place like CT. Report back what he says. Unless you're ready to pay $75 for a pizza, it's just not possible. Again, saying "raise the minimum wage" is simple, it sounds great, but unless you have a plan to help business owners deal with the massive increased labor costs, it's intellectually bankrupt. Liberals act like every business is owned by a billionaire. Most small businesses have fairly tight profit margins.

"Charity is never going to make up for increased funding (ie taxes)."

Yes, because government is always better at everything, than individuals are!

Paul, the government can't help anyone, when they're broke. Here in the liberal utopia of CT, there is tons and tons of tax dollars going to Hartford every single year. Yet vital social services are cut every single year. And it will get far worse in the near future as the union benefits actually become due to retiring Baby Boomers.

Because our state government isn't using that fortune to help needy people, like you would do with it (I know that's what you would do with it). They give it all to the labor unions that got them elected, and gave a ton to somebody to build the jillion dollar busway that nobody rides...and badly needed social programs can fight for the scraps.

You probably know someone who works for a state agency that relies on tax dollars to provide services that poor people actually need, like DCF. Ask them how state funding is trending. It's brutal.

Private charities are way, way more efficient and helpful. Because unlike state government in CT, they aren't wholly-owned subsidiaries of the teachers union.

The Rs have a long history of trying to cut social services and funding to poor people. I've posted up lots of examples.

Maybe all those babies born to poor families should pull themselves up by the bootstraps instead of depending on the govern!

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Actually he does have a point and you missed it totally. He never once mentioned charity. He said:

"Next they should start giving a chit about education funding and the general welfare of your common man. Raise minimum wage to a living wage. Increase medicare and social security."

Charity is never going to make up for increased funding (ie taxes).

To the topic of this thread, same question to you...

When would you say a baby becomes a human being, whose life is no longer something the mother can choose to snuff out for her own convenience?

Because 210 of 212 house democrats, say that just after birth, the baby still isn't a human being.

None of the lefties will attempt answering that.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

To the topic of this thread, same question to you...

When would you say a baby becomes a human being, whose life is no longer something the mother can choose to snuff out for her own convenience?

Because 210 of 212 house democrats, say that just after birth, the baby still isn't a human being.

None of the lefties will attempt answering that.

What does that have to do with you misreading his post?