I agree the statistic kind of implies the lower level, but it doesn't speak to the people above the poverty level, but below 300% of the poverty level. As you say, statistics can prove anything
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcjohnnyb  And I don't consider it murder if the egg/embryo/fetus cannot survive outside of the mother. If this is the case, it is "assisted life" in my mind, and I am not against taking someone off of outside assistance (such as, a breathing machine) if they cannot even enjoy life. It is better for them to be put out of their misery. If the case involves parents who do not want and cannot/won't support the kid, yet don't plan to give it up for adoption, I am all for it being put out its misery before it even has to experience that terrible life. |
You're suggesting that parents can and should have the right to starve their children, or each other, or handicapped family members under their care - anyone who couldn't get by on their own.
Because, a womb is not comparable to a breathing machine. There's a certain implied level of care one assumes when they choose to be a parent (a choice made at intercourse, not at birth). That implied care includes the gestation period. Now, once the child is born, they certainly have the choice to not provide for the child. If they do that by giving the child up for adoption, that's legal and humane. If they choose not to by killing the child ("won't support", as you said), that's murder. In my opinion, that includes the time from knowledge of being pregnant through the child's emancipation. We wouldn't tolerate a mother (or father) getting a prescription that htey know will kill a child for the child with the full intent of actually killing that child, so why do we tolerate a mother killing the child chemically or medically in the womb?