General Discussion

jwirr

(39,215 posts)

5. I would remove "can't take care of" as that usually

Fri Sep 18, 2015, 12:08 PM

Sep 2015

depends on circumstances beyond ones control.

Poverty is often merely a result of the market. You can get a divorce, go bankrupt, make a bad investment, be hit by a storm that takes out everything you own, not be able to find a job and bingo - you are in poverty.

I we insist that the economics should determine if one can have a child we just need to abort all children - because tomorrow you could end up poor or rich depending on the market.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

15 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

You "right to lifers" out there answer this question [View all] Stargazer99 Sep 2015 OP

rather than use thiat argument, I prefer hollysmom Sep 2015 #1

That's a good comeback... Phentex Sep 2015 #4

that is powerful virtualobserver Sep 2015 #8

Do you have come context for this post, please? MineralMan Sep 2015 #2

Major break in Baby Doe case; Neighbors describe missing girl next door mahatmakanejeeves Sep 2015 #6

Thanks! MineralMan Sep 2015 #12

You must have looked away from the Internet for ten seconds. mahatmakanejeeves Sep 2015 #13

I live in Boston and have been hearing about this on the news all day. smirkymonkey Sep 2015 #3

I would remove "can't take care of" as that usually jwirr Sep 2015 #5

It's not always about economics, but about determining beforehand whether you have smirkymonkey Sep 2015 #11

That is a good point. One of my grandsons is a gamer jwirr Sep 2015 #14

The question to ask them is why did God let the kid die? YabaDabaNoDinoNo Sep 2015 #7

Could be both. Just not "All-Beneficent." WinkyDink Sep 2015 #10

What is the question? WinkyDink Sep 2015 #9

This is a shitty argument. Brickbat Sep 2015 #15