Why do 'pro lifers' only care about life inside the womb?

Where have I said that a "soul" was a justification for equal rights? You are taking my comment out of context.

I would have to look up Jeremiah 1:5 to quote it back to you.

 

Which is exactly what happens in this country.

Why then do you say

 

Is this a debate about charity now or still about abortion.

 

http://sharonastyk.com/2008/05/25/fascinating-read/

Every estimate I have seen shows ~7M or ~10% of the population died of malnutrition. None of it was their fault. They were hard workers.

 

I meant to rely on charity for what I consider to be a basic human right, that I would not grudge anyone.

 

Charitable abortions.

 

Good the unborn is less than than living. That is how the government sees it and it is how the secular world sees it and God sees non believers as cannon fodder.

It is just face that the Pro-Life (Most if not all of them(R)) want to (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about welfare roles, make themselves look good in the eyes of themselves and have the poor that they helped cause to be animals.

Just you go demand that all prices are doubled strictly for employees and then pay for your food.

Cheap ass Americans.

EDIT: I am not saying all conservatives are like this because I am not.

 

Sub, I'm gonna have to agree with Archer.

Even though I'd like us to move away from welfare, it's something that will take a long time to properly adapt society for.

The times before the New Deal show us that, and yes, people did die for reasons mostly unheard of now.

Incremental reform has to be the approach taken, and several countries have effective workfare.

 

I liked the basis for this thread because it made me think a little more on my stance of being pro-life. To clarify, I am pro-life, agnostic, and pro-contraception.

Your point in this thread is whether or not our pro-life stances carry over to when the child is born. I can be both anti-welfare and pro-life with this stance: I don't mind extending benefits for the child, but not necessarily for the parents. I realize inherently some child benefits would also indirectly benefit the parents, but these should be on a case by case basis. The irresponsibility of one's parents (again I know there are exceptions) should not be held against the child, But neither should we reward the irresponsible behavior of the parents.

Thinking along these lines the fairest thing would be to ensure funding for said children was being used for their betterment, social services could be the ones to distinguish this, and unfit parents should have the children taken into government custody (foster care/ adoption/ orphanages).

Going one step further in this light (and I'll lose a lot of you here), I would want abortions banned (so as not to punish innocent children, and of course not in cases of rape/incest) and a mandatory tubectomy after a woman who is on assistance for 1 child and becomes pregnant with a second child before getting off assistance.

In this way the American people would never be on the hook for more than 2 babies per welfare recipient.

 

If a girl falls pregnant, and the guy, as does happen (alas), vanishes, but she does what pro lifers seem to think is the moral thing, and she has that baby, and is prepared to love and raise it, she needs to be at home most of the time, in order to do that.

So, unless of course she has another means of income, if she doesn't have that, and she is prepared to have and raise said baby, then she is essentially having to give up work to do so, at least for a good period of time.

On that basis, it is only right and proper that both her and the baby should be supported. I am happy to do that.

 

Under those circumstances, so am I. As long as the assistance goes to help the mother to raise the baby (not feed a drug habit, or let her fleece the system w/ an undocumented live-in boyfriend or "under the table" work). However as long as she remains on assistance, I see no reason for her to engage in behavior that could bear another child (unprotected sex), until she gets off of said assistance. There should be no incentive to be irresponsible, and becoming pregnant again when you have already declared that you need everyone's help to raise the 1st child is just that, irresponsible. The only way I see to enforce this part would be mandatory tubectomies after the birth of the 2nd child.

Before anyone goes there, I know there would still be some "gaps" in the idea. Yes, someone could have triplets the 2nd time, in this case the American people would be on the hook for 4 children. Or maybe triplets the 1st time, and in this case, she would still not have a mandatory tubectomy, and could have a 4th child before said operation. In the end though, these would be very infrequent cases, and the net amount of socially dependent children would be reduced, while at the same time no innocent children would be harmed either through abortion, or lack of social help.

 

Nup, sorry, that's me out then - I am simply not into using 'force' against women, that she has not approved of freely, and not under duress.

If you consider it 'irresponsible' to get pregnant, when you cannot really afford it, then it is irresponsible whether you do it once or twice, isn't it?

Therefore, if it comes down to finance for you, then the cheapest thing to do would be to encourage abortion, not discourage it.

Discouraging it costs more money, but it does let the precious babies live.

 

Disagree in the strongest terms. There is no such thing as a right which requires taking from others to fulfill it.

No, that's not why there is a Welfare State. That exists because FDR was a Socialist, and convinced the public that a bunch of temporary programs would be a simple cure to the economic malaise we felt as a result of the Great Depression - itself a contrived event.

But Europe looks like it will have no choice. Your statement is akin to an addicted person curing themselves. That's rare.

That is also the insipid danger of instituting hand-outs like these with which to begin.

That doesn't mean it was good - just politically expedient. Addicts are also voters, unfortunately.

That's another thing I believe in: I believe that Welfare recipients should not only submit to injected contraceptives, but I also believe that while on Welfare, they must lose their priviledge to vote.

 

That picture is not of dead people - which was my point.

What makes you think you are any greater authority than me? Hardship does not mean that Government handouts should have been implemented.

And you can be guaranteed that any warning directed at me "not to go there" will immediately result in going right there.

The Great Depression was horrid. It was a contrived action, meant to usher in the "need" for a Federal Reserve, and Big Government. That is exactly what happened.

 

It should not be a Federal issue. 80% of the population is Christian. Their positions on abortion are nuanced.

You're far over-simplifying.

 

All tights take from others in a society.

The right to a fair trial even takes money.

The rights of businesses take away from my right to privacy.

www.spokeo.com type your name.

The reason we have to have rights defined is they do infringe on others so a right is permission to infringe.

 

Are you denying that millions died as a result?

I do not know if it is you but are you denying that the problem with America is that we are cheap and greedy? If you want we can start a thread and hash this out but there is no need to even try and dismiss this. I present evidence as a qualifier for everything I say and if I am not clear I present more.

Look it is simple. We can not dictate morals and people have rights which means my life is affected. Hell let them kill themselves because it means my offspring have that much better of a chance.

 

Yes, I realized I would lose most people at that point. Alternatively, every child born on assistance after the 1st could become an immediate ward of the state upon birth. I don't like this idea as much though, as I think there needs to be more negative reinforcement for the mother (father too, whether it be through child-support to mother or state, DNA testing to prove).

2ndly, I not only believe in 2nd chances, but more importantly as your original example suggests, the woman could think the father would be there, and then dip out on her. He could be hard to track down or have no taxable income. It is due to these cases that one could become originally pregnant yet not be irresponsible. After this initial time though, she should not only be more alert to the possibility of her boyfriend leaving her, but also be focused mainly on getting off her need for assistance before she tries to bear more children. Doesn't that make sense logically and morally? Also it is not uncommon for laws and stances and social norms to have some "wiggle room". Criminals face harsher sentences for repeating crimes, but that doesn't mean one has to either choose mandatory maximum sentences or no jails.

3rd, It's not about finance to me at all. It's about not giving incentive to irresponsibility. One shouldn't receive more and more assistance the more and more irresponsible one is. In its current form one is given assistance for not naming the father, for not showing true taxable income, and for not showing taxable income for all parties living in the household. If I was a woman with a live-in working boyfriend (who was not registered as living with me or helping me financially) and we had a child, why wouldn't I continue to have more children and neglect to mention the above facts, so as to receive more monies?

And Lastly, the most important thing to me would be saving the life. As you'll note none of my stances involve terminating the pregnancy. After that my solutions shift to stopping the issue from arising again, so as not to promote the behavior.

I agree my views are extreme, but the logic behind them are sound, whereas in its current form welfare (and abortion) are more centrist views, with unsound logic.

 

That is an absolutely baseless claim. That link is utter nonsense. 10% of our population did not die from malnutrition, for crissake. Did you even look at your own pictures??

Did you see a SINGLE PERSON in those pictures who looked like this?



Do we have to stoop to such hyperbole based upon the biased ruminations of a Russian Communist in order to make a stupid case for monumental Government?

Not only was the Great Depression a currency-manipulated event - and a horrible one at that - but now we have to endure people revising history and claiming that 10% of the population died from hunger??????



FLAT. OUT. REJECTED. 10% of the friggin population did not die of HUNGER.

 

How about a de-nutting for the deadbeat dads.

And (*)(*)(*)(*)it ward of the state means I still pay.

 

No, they do not. There are positive and negative rights - and the rest are priviledges.

That is a Constitutionally enumerated priviledge granted as a form of Law - and called a 'right'.

There is no "right to privacy". There is only a right to private property - which is also protected.

As I said.

No, it is not. Your understanding of rights is not correct. Anything which demands taking from another in order to be fulfilled is not a natural right.

 

Yes - that is exactly what I'm doing.

I never said that, but that is NOT the problem. Americans are no more of either than anyone else. These are characteristics of human nature, which is the same across the globe. Americans are the most generous people on Earth. Cripes!

Then you'll have to come up with more. That site sucked balls.

This was a terribly convoluted statement. Allowing people to kill themselves is dictating morals. People's rights are extremely limited, and extremely well-defined.

 

But: sharonastyk.com/2008/05/25/fascinating-read/

http://www.infowars.com/researcher-famine-killed-7-million-in-us-during-great-depression/


I have seen some estimates as low as 2% but have no doubt people were suffering and dying from malnutrition.

7 million Industrial (city), 5 million rural, particularly farmers. When the unemployment rate rose to over 19%, within a year it's estimated a combined total of close to 12 million Americans died from starvation.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_died_in_the_Great_Depression#ixzz1jlgEAsmf

 

I'm all for a vasectomy of the male as well, given DNA proof. It would be harder to prove, but in cases where it could be, I'd be all for it.

Also, to compensate for the ward of the state idea, my idea would be to put the woman on the hook for child-support to the state. The father too for that matter. In this way both parties would have any wages made garnished, and the woman (so as not to be wholly financially responsible) would have reason to name the father, and even call him out if he was not reporting his income. If nothing else it would deter it from happening again rather than asking for it to.

 

#$P*(#&$#(*&

That is PRAVDA! The link is infowars!

Stop reading that crap!