Good news: your local government wants to steal the money you made with honest work to support pieces of human trash like this. They'll also give her a dozen chances to "rehabilitate" and move heaven and earth to not take her broken, brain-damaged, crack baby away from her.
I promise you that after a few hours of withdrawal she would be willing to throw that baby in a blender in exchange for a hit. Some people are not salvageable, and the most humane thing would be to eradicate them like we do with a pest infestation.
They will steal the money, but the story about helping these people is incorrect. They simply funnel it through their "charities" that kick the money back into their campaigns.
That is, homelessness is a fantastic money laundering scheme as auditing crackheads is near impossible.
I'm pretty sure that a baby born addicted to crack will not go home with its mother. At least in places I've been/known. The baby would be taken to the hospital for detox, and CPS would be called at that point. The kid wouldn't be getting out for a while, so that would give CPS time to go before a judge and get the child removed.
Later.. yeah if she cleans up. People don't always succeed at that. But a lot of people don't try.
practically speaking, I don't really mind if there are restrictions on it in terms of time. I think Florida's 6 weeks is too aggressive because irresponsible women won't act quickly enough. somewhere in the 8-12 week range is where I think the bulk of the Republican party should be.
my real answer if I were God-King: it depends on who is getting aborted. I would have statistical risk charts based on the most detailed data possible in order to "score" the potential life based on its odds of being a net gain or net negative to society. High score good babies = abortion totally illegal & banned. Low score bad babies likely to do things like crime or BLM riots or be stupid or disabled or vote Democrat = abortion highly encouraged or even mandated.
my view on abortion is identical to my view on immigration: policy should be 100% based on what is best for those of us who are already here, with 0 weight placed on the interests of the immigrant.
but that's eugenics
thank you for noticing. I've been a supporter of eugenics since I did a science project on it as a child. I've never understood how it can be legal for 2 retards to fuck & make a retard baby, just because society is too spineless to sterilize women who have serious genetic diseases. there are lots of people who should be required to accept sterilization as a condition of receiving government welfare payments.
Yes. I believe abortion is a moral wrong, but I believe it's probably a net positive.
Something like 12 weeks works for me. 6 weeks--or none--will destroy the Republican party for the foreseeable future.
I've always found it ironic. One of my lefty friends who had pro-abortion bumper stickers on her car has a child with a genetic disease. She chose not to abort, and she and her husband are totally devoted to their kid who has serious, lifelong, issues. I am morally opposed to abortion, and I thankfully have never been in her position, but I would have aborted.
OTOH, the problem with eugenics is, who gets to decide?
OTOH, the problem with eugenics is, who gets to decide
Unfortunately, that's the problem with so many things. I'm a firm believer that problematic politicians, judges, prosecutors, and police should simply be murdered extrajudicially, but once that genie is out of the bottle I can guarantee that people simply angry about going to jail will be committing as many or more murders than the righteous.
Likewise, voting. Most people don't deserve a vote, and should basically be enslaved for the good of humanity. Free will and self-determination should be left to their more intelligent and more ethical betters. But if we ever enacted something like that, it would immediately be weaponized to oppress people based on attributes that have nothing to do with why the system was put in place
My brother said something similar about welfare. Guys who have kids that they aren’t taking care of should get a mandatory vasectomy and he thinks women who have kids they don’t support should have their tubes tied
This is heartbreaking. This dystopia is the result of leftist urban elites who's farts don't stink who think their policies of enabling drug use reduce harmful outcomes. San Francisco is dystopian with some of the most well off people living in literal towers overlooking the poorest and most downtrodden on the streets. How the hell do these people not see or care about the damage their "compassionate" policies do to the people they nominally claim to want to help?
Good news: your local government wants to steal the money you made with honest work to support pieces of human trash like this. They'll also give her a dozen chances to "rehabilitate" and move heaven and earth to not take her broken, brain-damaged, crack baby away from her.
I promise you that after a few hours of withdrawal she would be willing to throw that baby in a blender in exchange for a hit. Some people are not salvageable, and the most humane thing would be to eradicate them like we do with a pest infestation.
They will steal the money, but the story about helping these people is incorrect. They simply funnel it through their "charities" that kick the money back into their campaigns.
That is, homelessness is a fantastic money laundering scheme as auditing crackheads is near impossible.
I'm pretty sure that a baby born addicted to crack will not go home with its mother. At least in places I've been/known. The baby would be taken to the hospital for detox, and CPS would be called at that point. The kid wouldn't be getting out for a while, so that would give CPS time to go before a judge and get the child removed.
Later.. yeah if she cleans up. People don't always succeed at that. But a lot of people don't try.
I know some folks like that. Meth babies are not fun to raise.
why I support abortion
Out of curiosity, do you support it in all phases or up to a certain point?
practically speaking, I don't really mind if there are restrictions on it in terms of time. I think Florida's 6 weeks is too aggressive because irresponsible women won't act quickly enough. somewhere in the 8-12 week range is where I think the bulk of the Republican party should be.
my real answer if I were God-King: it depends on who is getting aborted. I would have statistical risk charts based on the most detailed data possible in order to "score" the potential life based on its odds of being a net gain or net negative to society. High score good babies = abortion totally illegal & banned. Low score bad babies likely to do things like crime or BLM riots or be stupid or disabled or vote Democrat = abortion highly encouraged or even mandated.
my view on abortion is identical to my view on immigration: policy should be 100% based on what is best for those of us who are already here, with 0 weight placed on the interests of the immigrant.
thank you for noticing. I've been a supporter of eugenics since I did a science project on it as a child. I've never understood how it can be legal for 2 retards to fuck & make a retard baby, just because society is too spineless to sterilize women who have serious genetic diseases. there are lots of people who should be required to accept sterilization as a condition of receiving government welfare payments.
Yes. I believe abortion is a moral wrong, but I believe it's probably a net positive.
Something like 12 weeks works for me. 6 weeks--or none--will destroy the Republican party for the foreseeable future.
I've always found it ironic. One of my lefty friends who had pro-abortion bumper stickers on her car has a child with a genetic disease. She chose not to abort, and she and her husband are totally devoted to their kid who has serious, lifelong, issues. I am morally opposed to abortion, and I thankfully have never been in her position, but I would have aborted.
OTOH, the problem with eugenics is, who gets to decide?
Unfortunately, that's the problem with so many things. I'm a firm believer that problematic politicians, judges, prosecutors, and police should simply be murdered extrajudicially, but once that genie is out of the bottle I can guarantee that people simply angry about going to jail will be committing as many or more murders than the righteous.
Likewise, voting. Most people don't deserve a vote, and should basically be enslaved for the good of humanity. Free will and self-determination should be left to their more intelligent and more ethical betters. But if we ever enacted something like that, it would immediately be weaponized to oppress people based on attributes that have nothing to do with why the system was put in place
I'm only ok with it as long as it's me who decides. LOL. That's why I said "God Emperor" version.
I would never trust our incompetent, corrupt government to decide. I don't trust them with anything except how to rig things to benefit the democrats.
My brother said something similar about welfare. Guys who have kids that they aren’t taking care of should get a mandatory vasectomy and he thinks women who have kids they don’t support should have their tubes tied
Yes, if only she had access to abortions in- San Francisco- this tragedy could have been avoided.
That woman is the product of a lifetime of bad decisions. At some point society should cut their losses and cast them out from society.
baby chose to play on hell mode
The poor baby laying on the pavement...
This is heartbreaking. This dystopia is the result of leftist urban elites who's farts don't stink who think their policies of enabling drug use reduce harmful outcomes. San Francisco is dystopian with some of the most well off people living in literal towers overlooking the poorest and most downtrodden on the streets. How the hell do these people not see or care about the damage their "compassionate" policies do to the people they nominally claim to want to help?