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

Counter with more than mouth please. I am going by links here. Would you like me to call the census? Hey send them an email?

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

 

You went from infowars to wikianswers.

This is ridiculous. The census dropped because people weren't having as many kids.

 

Here is a more reliable source:

http://www.scumdoctor.com/nutrition...d-Starvation-During-The-Great-Depression.html

 

How many people starved during the Great Depression?

This is without questioning other health complications in those who purportedly 'died of starvation'.

110 in NYC.

Look at the picture in the cite link. That lady is actually...fat.



You're going to have to work very hard to get to any number with statistical significance. Millions did not starve to death during the Great Depression. Holy ridiculous hyperbole.

 

Now this I can agree with.

 

Abortion is a form of shirking one's responsibility. "I can't/won't/don't want to take care of my baby so I'm going to kill it before it's born" The answer isn't to let people "off the hook" because they acted irresponsibly, but rather to make them "face the music", either by raising the child, or paying some one else to.

Once we've established people shouldn't kill their unborn children, we have to decide what to do about this baby being born to someone who can't/doesn't want to raise it on their own. I know this isn't the basis of the thread, but abortion and welfare are linked, especially if you rule out abortion. If you just don't want to take care of the child, too bad, you either have to pay the other parent child-support or the state child-support. I think the government playing the role as the intermediary between needy parents and working class has numbed us to exactly whats happening. I'll give you an example with government intervention replaced with real people:

A woman's husband dies and leaves her with 2 kids which she cannot afford to raise. She says "Woe is me, my husband has died, and myself and both my children will die too if my community doesn't help me" So everyone in the community pitches in and fixes her house up, so she and her children have shelter (section 8 housing). Then you and others in the community start buying food and drink for her and her children (WIC). Then you decide it would be nice if everyone (including you) dropped off a little money on her doorstep every month (welfare) so that she could buy some simple luxuries like toys and have some recreational time with her children.

So far so good right? Everyone in the community pitched in and helped out for the greater good, I have no problem with this. But what if a gentleman caller starts to come around? He's seen taking her out on the town, and having fun with her, buying things for her. Now they have another child together, and she says "Woe is me, I have another child, could you please drop off more money every month?" Would you do it? What if another boyfriend led to another child? And another? And Another? Of course you wouldn't, you say "Lady, quit having kids you can't take care of!!!". Hopefully you wouldn't say "This isn't working out, just come over to my house and I'll kill the next baby before its born"

We need to have a system that doesn't allow killing babies, while at the same time doesn't allow adults to have monetary gain for having babies they can't afford. Whether it be through mandatory tubectomies, or paying the state to take care of the child.

 

Well I knew you would call yourself a liar.

So the effects of malnutrition killed many people. How many? Who knows.

Just think we can do it all again with the millions of new children. Gotta wonder who is really liberal in the end.

 

Don't be a jackass. The numbers are not significant, and I think you need to recuse yourself from this conversation after being soundly humbled on how ridiculous your sources were. 10% of the population? And you you think you still have a credible voice on the topic?

That proclamation was full-blown tinsel-head.

Not a statistically significant number, as I have maintained all along.

What?

I no longer wonder who is sane, that's certain.



There are thousands of pictures of people during the Great Depression. There are not people who look like they did in Germany's concentration camps. Stop your baseless claims and ridiculous hyperbole.

 

Give it up I can admit I missed the mark on this but it was about you comment I had in red and nothing more "There was no significant starving of people on the streets at any time, pre- or post- New Deal." and now you have said it in your own post. People were starving in the streets and even dying. Dude you fail on this. I am like the Anderson I will take several blows to get in a knockout.

 

Worse they spend millions in donations of money and time in relation to those who MIGHT have existed (or might not given the high miscarriage rate of the human species) while ignoring babies and children starving and dying throughout the world

Let us get out priorities right - look after the ones that are here NOW, and then worry about those that might never be.

 

Progressive leaders aren't interested in saving babies. They are population control freaks who would prefer to abort'em'all.

 

V interesting point, and thanks for raising it.

My guess would be that they consider these starving and diseased children to be all part of some grander 'plan' that their god has.

Or something.

 

Like mass orphanages?

 

That's an asinine assertion, Archer. People are dying today of "starvation". And in the 90's. And 80's. Always.

The claim has failed. My assertion never had anything to do with anything other than statistically significant numbers, which I stated repeatedly.

And you'll note that I provided the statistic about the people in NYC, which is - itself - not solid.

It's just the most credible claim available on the 'web. That's how peurile the claim of starvation during the Great Depression was.

 

You said and I quote "There was no significant starving of people on the streets at any time, pre- or post- New Deal."

Then you did an Obamaian switch and all of the sudden you never said it.

 

Foreign aid gives leaders incentive to stunt economic progress and rewards them for having a poor population. Progressive elitists have outlined this approach to population control in several of their writings. Those starving babies you see, it's intentional.

 

Do you know what is a human tragedy?

Human starvation, in 2012.

And here is what makes it a moral crime of crimes, since that word is bandied around on here - in reality, no one need starve.

Yes, that is true, don't let anyone tell you otherwise, whatever BS excuses they invent to make out like this is 'impossible'.

It really wouldn't be.

Pro life should very much include the preventitive starvation of people, no matter where they are, if they care about human life.

Humanity cannot call itself 'civilised' for as long as our system could have the means to ensure no one starves, and doesn't do it.

Now you are going to tell me that I am wrong, and that you right, and how it cannot be done, etc, etc...

 

It's his thing.

He has done it all the way through.

You are now the fourth person to comment on it.

But he says he doesn't, and that we are really wrong.

So that's us all told.

 

I agree more time/money needs to be spent addressing world starvation than whether or not we keep all our retirement benefits so we can afford the internet and air-conditioning.

But I strongly disagree with your second point, that those here now are more important than those who never were. First, I disagree that they "might never be". They were there, electricity bubbling over developing brain synapses. If my choice was to die of starvation, or be sucked out of a tube before I was actually born, I'll take the fighting chance any day. Being born at all is EXTREMELY Lucky given the trillions of trillions of sperm (1 of which is 1/2 of you) and the billions of billions of eggs (1 of which is the other 1/2 of you) coupled with miscarriage rates of ~20-40% (depending on the study) make it a miracle to ever be born at all, why throw in intentional slaying of fetuses as another barrier to being born, and then downplay it to be less brutal than starving to death. Both suck, let's get them born 1st, and then feed them.

 

One civilization does not have the duty to feed another civilization unless they have reason. Thats why their are different civilizations. If people cant feed themselfs, that's not our problem. And besides, this is about abortion.

 

They may not be legally bound, I don't know the full nuances, however, I did mention the word 'morally', since that is a word that has been often used, on this thread, people puffing out their chests, and speaking about how MORAL they are.

Good.

Then be morally outraged that the already born are painfully starving, across the planet, and that it would be possible for that not to be the case.

Oh, and let's not forget that the Pope preaches to uneducated Africans that putting something on it, is a 'sin', which is literally an evil thing to discourage (contraception), since so many are born with HIV, or into 'hell'. Not to mention the direct spread of disease, that has been rampant, and could have been prevented by encouraging the use of condoms.

 

Yes it is and this is also about population. Increased by no abortions.

 

I'm a bigger fan of the tubectomies/vasectomies, but yes orphanages for the other idea. I doubt they'd be "mass" though since my idea would put the mother "on the hook" to pay for these babies being raised due to her irresponsibility. Since she would not want to be wholly financially responsible she would have reason to name a father (who would be proven with DNA testing). Since both the mother and father (not the taxpayers) would have to pay the state it would naturally detract from the desire to have said babies one cannot afford and cause people to be responsible for their actions, thus creating fewer orphanages than you let on. I realize some people may dodge the system w/o having reported income, but overall the situation would get better not worse.

 

It's not 'lucky' for some, chum.

It's not at all 'lucky' for many.

Hey, do you think this little fella felt he got lucky, being born?

I would personally sooner have died in the womb.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E1rKYrP_DY"]The Peter Connelly Story - YouTube[/ame]

 

I am pro-choice. That being said, your thread poses an interesting logical problem. You are linking pro-life to general humanitarianism, and their position does not belong there.

Its sort of like saying its wrong to oppose the murders in Darfur because of droughts and famine within the region. If the people in Darfur were not killed they could be exposed to starvation and multiple human rights violations. Continuing in this vein--- While the deaths from genocide are regrettable in the end they can be seen as for the best, and our efforts would be best served to combat drought, famine, and human rights violations within this region.

Pro-lifers care about the general human condition in their own way. They also believe abortion is murder.

I do not believe abortion is murder, but I can understand how important this issue could be to someone who does.