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

I never said i was a moral person, i trust in god, i obey him and help other people, but you cant help others unless you help yourself first.

 

That's fine if the mother has a sustainable income source.

What if she has none?

What if he has none?

You cannot fine people money they do not have, besides, fining a mother would only hurt the kid.

 

I never said that you were.

 

Thats why they find a suportable income source.

 

This was a gut-wrenching video. I have my 1st child due in about 6 months, so it definitely hit home with me. I would argue this video is much more a testament to the failure of our social system (to save the child when injuries were noticed) and those particular "parents", than it is for a justification of abortion. As far as being better off not born at all I also disagree. If you believe in heaven (which the producer of the video obviously does) than he is in a better place than he would have been for not being born at all. Even if you don't believe in heaven I would argue having a chance at life is better than none at all (many births do not result in this kind of torture). Furthermore, abortion IS legal, yet this child was NOT aborted, and still received this treatment. Lots of gaps here, doesn't change my mind on how EXTREMELY lucky he was to be born, but how EXTREMELY unlucky after he was born he would go through this.

I alluded to this in my original post, but I'll go into more detail. Not only can she (and he) have no reportable income now, but for the REST of their lives, it would be like paying back child support, except this money goes to the state. Yes, there will be the few cases that a person works completely off the record for their ENTIRE lives, but it will be few and far between. This difference would have to be made up by the taxpayer as "breakage" or "the cost of doing business". On average this will not be the case, and it would result in a NET gain to the taxpayer as less of a burden would be placed on them each time someone did have reportable income at some point in their lives (way more often than not). It would also give people pause before putting their personal pleasures before their financial standing. This would result in less irresponsible pregnancies, further helping to fix the problem.

Lastly, Fining a mother would not hurt the child in this case, because he/she would be a ward of the state at this point, there would be no interaction between mother and child in this setting (aside from her wages being garnished to the government to cover costs).

 

Well, I don't really see a knock-out, unless you call about 300 people over a 10 year period as significant. I could see where some would, but there were more people killed in random accidents then through starvation during the depression.

 

I would be willing to bet that most donations, (or at least a large portion) that goes to foreign countries to feed starving children comes from the US....and a good portion of that comes from pro-lifers.

 

"The depression meant hunger, malnutrition, overcrowding, and poor health." you did post this correct?

 

A further comment against Bowerbird, its not our fault that they dont get the money we sent. Its their governments.

 

Not necessarily. Most States are pretty proactive about trying to reunite families. If the situation warrants the child(ren) staying with the State and the Parent(s) are working with the State, temporary or extended visitation is usually arranged.

 

I wasnt paying much attention, can people please restate whether they are pro or against abortion.

 

Yes, and I also posted the rest of the quote:

You might want to read the text in green.

Just because a person is malnourished or hungry does not mean they died from it.

 

Funny thing about it. I bet you think the Iraq war was a good idea and the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, woman and children, who were born, being killed was just unfortunate collatoral damage of war. But America's interests justify these deaths. What those interests are is unclear, but patriotism requires you to believe our soldiers and those innocent iraqis were dying for our freedom. But in the next breath, the termination of the growth of a tiny unborn fetus with a brain developed less than a chicken is a moral travesty.

 

War is War, no point in trying to put it that we think it was for our own good, they were just unfortionate deaths, that is how war has always been and will remain like that.

 

http://www.nber.org/papers/w11246.pdf
http://www.princeton.edu/chw/events_archive/repository/02272006_haines/02-27-06.pdf



Also from the CDC: Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Healthier Mothers and Babies

At the beginning of the 20th century, for every 1000 live births, six to nine women in the United States died of pregnancy-related complications, and approximately 100 infants died before age 1 year (1,2). From 1915 through 1997, the infant mortality rate declined greater than 90% to 7.2 per 1000 live births, and from 1900 through 1997, the maternal mortality rate declined almost 99% to less than 0.1 reported death per 1000 live births (7.7 deaths per 100,000 live births in 1997) (3) (Figure 1 and Figure 2). Environmental interventions, improvements in nutrition, advances in clinical medicine, improvements in access to health care, improvements in surveillance and monitoring of disease, increases in education levels, and improvements in standards of living contributed to this remarkable decline (1). Despite these improvements in maternal and infant mortality rates, significant disparities by race and ethnicity persist. This report summarizes trends in reducing infant and maternal mortality in the United States, factors contributing to these trends, challenges in reducing infant and maternal mortality, and provides suggestions for public health action for the 21st century.

Infant Mortality

The decline in infant mortality is unparalleled by other mortality reduction this century. If turn-of-the-century infant death rates had continued, then an estimated 500,000 live-born infants during 1997 would have died before age 1 year; instead, 28,045 infants died (3).

In 1900 in some U.S. cities, up to 30% of infants died before reaching their first birthday (1). Efforts to reduce infant mortality focused on improving environmental and living conditions in urban areas (1). Urban environmental interventions (e.g., sewage and refuse disposal and safe drinking water) played key roles in reducing infant mortality. Rising standards of living, including improvements in economic and education levels of families, helped to promote health. Declining fertility rates also contributed to reductions in infant mortality through longer spacing of children, smaller family size, and better nutritional status of mothers and infants (1). Milk pasteurization, first adopted in Chicago in 1908, contributed to the control of milkborne diseases (e.g., gastrointestinal infections) from contaminated milk supplies.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4838a2.htm

So malnutrition caused a large increase in the infant mortality rate. They do count don't they?

Oh and the first one was a Princeton study funded by the national science foundation.

Without any whys or wherefores the Census Bureau last week announced that fewer U. S. women are having babies, that more babies are dying their first year. The 1933 birth rate per 1,000 population was 16.4, lowest since 1915 when Federal registration began. The 1932 birth rate was 17.4 per 1,000 population.
In 1933 infant mortality was 58.2 per 1,000 live births; 1932's infant mortality: 57.6.


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,787897,00.html#ixzz1jmU58IJy
Year Population Change % Change
1942 134,859,553 1,457,082 1.09%
1941 133,402,471 1,280,025 0.97%
1940 132,122,446 1,242,728 0.95%
1939 130,879,718 1,054,779 0.81%
1938 129,824,939 1,000,110 0.78%
1937 128,824,829 771,649 0.60%
1936 128,053,180 802,948 0.63%
1935 127,250,232 876,459 0.69%
1934 126,373,773 795,010 0.63%
1933 125,578,763 738,292 0.59%
1932 124,840,471 800,823 0.65%
1931 124,039,648 962,907 0.78%
1930 123,076,741 1,309,741 1.08%
1929 121,767,000 1,258,000 1.04%
1928 120,509,000 1,474,000 1.24%
1927 119,035,000 1,638,000 1.40%
1926 117,397,000 1,568,000 1.35%
1925 115,829,000 1,720,000 1.51%
1924 114,109,000 2,162,000 1.93%
1923 111,947,000 1,898,000 1.72%
1922 110,049,000 1,511,000 1.39%
1921 108,538,000 2,077,000 1.95%
1920 106,461,000 1,947,000 1.86%
1919 104,514,000 1,306,000 1.27%

http://www.demographia.com/db-uspop1900.htm

Just look at the numbers there is no need to do the math.

So in 1933 should that number have been closer to.. Well it don't matter several hundred thousand just that year. Just look at the trends.

 

Does anyone even look at my posts on this thread anymore?

 

To the OP...

Republicans are only pro life until you're born...then, you're of your own completely.

 

Well I am personally against it but politically I am pro-choice.

 

I can understand that, you want people to have their freedom, but you wouldnt want it to happen in your family.

 

While you're busy predicting what I'd say on the topic, I noticed no plan you offered that guarantees no one starves.

That I'd like to see.

 

I would prefer everyone be responsible. It sickens me to be this way but the alternative is worse I think.

 

You're fantasizing again. I not only said that, but I stand by it - and the evidence supports me. There was no significant starving of people on the streets during the Great Depression.

Do you wish to begin an argument about 'significant'? You, after all, started by attempting to assert that 10% of the entire population of the US starved to death!

 

I also said that earlier in the thread, that why should we ask if abortion is moral, instead of why are the girls irresponsible enough not to protect themselfs and go slutting around.

 

This is an abortion thread...stop with the fricken starvation crap already.

 

I think the key to making abortion more appealing to the right wing is to make it more profitable. Walmart could sell abortion kits, CEO's could get kids in little brown countries to supply them, and everybody's happy.


PinkSlip Romney in 2012! Abort society for profit!!!