So when people are dying, who can’t get insurance coverage for a pre-existing condition or had the affordable care act and can’t get any insurance at all die, decreasing the population that way, can we file a lawsuit for that?
While deplorable, yes, can a similar litigation rationale exist on population losses to be caused by deportation? Wondering if Texas has considered the pending loss of representation and funding??
If the states of Idaho, Kansas, and Missouri are truly concerned about the negative effect current regulations (or lack thereof) have on future population sizes, perhaps they should do something about gun control and reduce the carnage wrought upon the citizenry due to lax gun laws.
Geez . . . what am I thinking? It's Idaho. It's Kansas. It's Missouri. Never mind.
How many heinous and absurd lawsuits have Kansas and Missouri now launched? How do they even keep up with it all? They clearly have no standing, as usual, despite claims to the contrary. The have formed a lawsuit mill that operates 24/7 forever.
Why do they need "representation"? I thought conservatives didn't want the gummint to fund ANYthing... except of course the military and the cops. Now they're all "fund me!" "Fund me!"
The other issue is that PREGNANCY IS HARD ON BODIES. Just because a teenager can get pregnant, does not mean she will have a healthy baby! Her hips have not necessarily widened fully; her bones may not have lengthened completely yet. She has not built up the additional subcutaneous fat to support a pregnancy and subsequent breastfeeding.
One of the reason women used to die in childbirth all the time as teenagers is because THEY WERE TOO YOUNG TO HAVE CHILDREN YET.
18 seems like a totally arbitrary number for adulthood, but honestly, it's a valid number for, "hey maybe this young woman shouldn't have a baby yet." Once a woman hits 19-20 her body has the full capacity to support a pregnancy to term with fewer risks of complications from BEING TOO YOUNG.
I had to read your article more than once to fully grasp what you’re advocating for. Now that I comprehend your meaning, I am certain to continue in prayer for you. God still loves you, so don’t give up on Him.
Maybe you should "continue in prayer" for the state leaders who WANT more teen pregnancy.
Robyn is not arguing simply for abortion. She is specifically arguing for comprehensive sex education, access to birth control, and support for the healthy choices young people need to make- and sometimes that's abortion, when they know they aren't ready to be parents or come anywhere close, and sometimes that's assistance with food, housing, education, healthcare and daycare, because every child we lift out of poverty is another success story.
Colorado dropped its abortion rate significantly by offering free long term birth control to teen and low income women- a program that was more effective in ending abortions than making them illegal. Republicans ended that program, apparently because they don't care enough about ending abortions to actually help people.
This reminds me of Walden Two, B.F. Skinner's one fiction book. It is an attempt to design a utopia based on behaviouralist principles and the scientific method. One thing this fictional utopia learned is that if childcare is supported by professionals and communal, then having children young does no harm to the parents' future. In that society women would often have babies while they're around 20 years old, with 16 year old parents not being unusual, and their daily parenting work is strongly supported by the community so not unduly hard. Plus, even if the parents did it all themselves, they'd basically be done when they're halfway in their thirties, having a full life ahead of them while they're still healthy.
The details of that novel's parenting methods are a bit weird. While it is hard to figure out how much of that is my cultural conditioning, the underlying principle of "design society in such a way that we guarantee that parents are extremely well supported" is definitely something I can get behind.
This was, insomuch as I thought about it at the time, part of my rationale for having kids young (early 20s). Of course I didn't live in a society with any sort of social support other than welfare; and I failed to take into account the fact that while my peers were finishing their education and getting job experience - not to mention enjoying social occasions and somewhat disposable income - I was home caring for mah wee bairns and NOT contributing to Social Security. There certainly could be fixes for that, but I suspect they fall under the dread rubric of *socialism*.
Women are not cattle, this is not 1824, we are not going to populate your state with children that are not taken care of. No healthcare, food on a regular basis, housing and education. They are lacking all the basic needs that children need. Teenage pregnancy is not going to help anyone. The mothers are the ones that suffer most from this problem. No education, they have dreams of what they want to do with their lives. Forced pregnancy is not the answer.
Smart women will NOT get pregnant in any state with Soviet Union government tendencies. Save yourselves death or being maimed.
The future of cheap labor for the oligarchy is at risk.
So when people are dying, who can’t get insurance coverage for a pre-existing condition or had the affordable care act and can’t get any insurance at all die, decreasing the population that way, can we file a lawsuit for that?
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
Albert Einstein
While deplorable, yes, can a similar litigation rationale exist on population losses to be caused by deportation? Wondering if Texas has considered the pending loss of representation and funding??
If the states of Idaho, Kansas, and Missouri are truly concerned about the negative effect current regulations (or lack thereof) have on future population sizes, perhaps they should do something about gun control and reduce the carnage wrought upon the citizenry due to lax gun laws.
Geez . . . what am I thinking? It's Idaho. It's Kansas. It's Missouri. Never mind.
How many heinous and absurd lawsuits have Kansas and Missouri now launched? How do they even keep up with it all? They clearly have no standing, as usual, despite claims to the contrary. The have formed a lawsuit mill that operates 24/7 forever.
Why do they need "representation"? I thought conservatives didn't want the gummint to fund ANYthing... except of course the military and the cops. Now they're all "fund me!" "Fund me!"
How derisive.
How derisive…
Are they living in opposite land? Because . . . Whoa.
Yes they are and their numbers are growing like a toe fungus.
Everything about that lawsuit disgusts and horrifies me.
The other issue is that PREGNANCY IS HARD ON BODIES. Just because a teenager can get pregnant, does not mean she will have a healthy baby! Her hips have not necessarily widened fully; her bones may not have lengthened completely yet. She has not built up the additional subcutaneous fat to support a pregnancy and subsequent breastfeeding.
One of the reason women used to die in childbirth all the time as teenagers is because THEY WERE TOO YOUNG TO HAVE CHILDREN YET.
18 seems like a totally arbitrary number for adulthood, but honestly, it's a valid number for, "hey maybe this young woman shouldn't have a baby yet." Once a woman hits 19-20 her body has the full capacity to support a pregnancy to term with fewer risks of complications from BEING TOO YOUNG.
Her brain, however, as I've heard, is still not fully developed. As anyone who has known or been a youngster might've noticed.
I had to read your article more than once to fully grasp what you’re advocating for. Now that I comprehend your meaning, I am certain to continue in prayer for you. God still loves you, so don’t give up on Him.
Maybe you should "continue in prayer" for the state leaders who WANT more teen pregnancy.
Robyn is not arguing simply for abortion. She is specifically arguing for comprehensive sex education, access to birth control, and support for the healthy choices young people need to make- and sometimes that's abortion, when they know they aren't ready to be parents or come anywhere close, and sometimes that's assistance with food, housing, education, healthcare and daycare, because every child we lift out of poverty is another success story.
Colorado dropped its abortion rate significantly by offering free long term birth control to teen and low income women- a program that was more effective in ending abortions than making them illegal. Republicans ended that program, apparently because they don't care enough about ending abortions to actually help people.
Great mic drop.
red states, the real "welfare queens"
This reminds me of Walden Two, B.F. Skinner's one fiction book. It is an attempt to design a utopia based on behaviouralist principles and the scientific method. One thing this fictional utopia learned is that if childcare is supported by professionals and communal, then having children young does no harm to the parents' future. In that society women would often have babies while they're around 20 years old, with 16 year old parents not being unusual, and their daily parenting work is strongly supported by the community so not unduly hard. Plus, even if the parents did it all themselves, they'd basically be done when they're halfway in their thirties, having a full life ahead of them while they're still healthy.
The details of that novel's parenting methods are a bit weird. While it is hard to figure out how much of that is my cultural conditioning, the underlying principle of "design society in such a way that we guarantee that parents are extremely well supported" is definitely something I can get behind.
This was, insomuch as I thought about it at the time, part of my rationale for having kids young (early 20s). Of course I didn't live in a society with any sort of social support other than welfare; and I failed to take into account the fact that while my peers were finishing their education and getting job experience - not to mention enjoying social occasions and somewhat disposable income - I was home caring for mah wee bairns and NOT contributing to Social Security. There certainly could be fixes for that, but I suspect they fall under the dread rubric of *socialism*.
Women are not cattle, this is not 1824, we are not going to populate your state with children that are not taken care of. No healthcare, food on a regular basis, housing and education. They are lacking all the basic needs that children need. Teenage pregnancy is not going to help anyone. The mothers are the ones that suffer most from this problem. No education, they have dreams of what they want to do with their lives. Forced pregnancy is not the answer.
Never doubt that evil exists. There is no god, but evil is very real