This article makes the leftwing claim that if our government is going to rule against abortion, then it should rule "for" child support.
But what is being "for" child support? Like so many leftwing ideas, it tends to portray the funding as something that appears by magic from the government. No one actually pays.
Obviously this is false. What it is saying is that if you oppose someone's "right" to kill a child, then as a taxpayer you should be responsible for paying for the care of that child.
How about if people own up to the care of a child before deciding upon doing an act that could create a child?
But what is being "for" child support? Like so many leftwing ideas, it tends to portray the funding as something that appears by magic from the government. No one actually pays.
Obviously this is false. What it is saying is that if you oppose someone's "right" to kill a child, then as a taxpayer you should be responsible for paying for the care of that child.
How about if people own up to the care of a child before deciding upon doing an act that could create a child?
