# Opposing abortion does not, necessarily, require support for babies or mothers after birth **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 27, 2019, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602 "2019-05-27T18:05:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2019, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/141 "2019-05-30T00:59:26Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > One of us is clearly confused. You’re saying Democrats should change their position on one issue in order to attract a group of voters. Wouldn’t those people by definition be one issue voters? No, they would not be “by definition” (it’s possible of course that some of them \*could \*be), and I already explained why not. Try rereading what I posted above. But heck, I’ll throw in a little something more to illustrate. You’ve heard of “the straw that broke the camel’s back”, right? Maybe that one piece of straw was added to an already very heavy load of corn. That doesn’t mean straw is the only thing the camel found heavy. Or here’s one more, that’s actually much closer to this question: you’re familiar with “battleground states” in presidential elections? For shorthand, we talk about the election coming down to winning those states, or a majority of them. That doesn’t mean you don’t have to win a bunch of non-battleground states as well–and those non-battleground states will be completely different whether you are a Democrat or a Republican. Hopefully that clears up this strange little tangent. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2019, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/142 "2019-05-30T03:42:05Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > You keep saying that that is a topic for another thread, but it is the exact topic of this thread. This thread is specifically asking if pro-lifers should be also advocating for a social programs to support babies and mothers after birth. It’s right in the title. Not sure why you keep trying to deflect by trying to equate it to individual responsibility, as that is not in any way related to this thread. I didn’t read the thread that way. Social programs are here already. The question, at least in my mind, was that there was some sort of personal obligation on the side of the pro-life movement to contribute. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > Well, as a pro-choicer, the word choice is in the name, and I support the mother in whatever she chooses. If she wasnt to keep the baby, I want to support her in that decision. If she wants to have but give up the baby, I support her in that decision. If she doesn’t want to carry the baby, I support her in that decision. Yes, the pro-choice is only choice in relation to abortion rights. > > This is opposed to pro-life, which has nothing to do with promoting life. There is nothing that is actually pro-life about the policies that they push. It can only be, at most, narrowly defined as “Pro-Life in regards to birth”. > > So, yeah, unlike the term “choice”, which you are correct is limited to reproductive rights, but in regards to those reproductive rights is pretty comprehensive, the term “life” has absolutely nothing to do with the pro-lifer’s position. > > That is where you mess yourself up. We are not pro-choice for the choice to have legal abortions and nothing more. We are pro-choice in that if she wants to keep the baby, she can make that choice. > > I will agree that “how can you say that you are pro-life if you support the death penalty?” arguments are a bit out of line, but “how can you say that you are pro-life when you stop giving a shit about the baby once it is born?” is very relevant. You are pro-choice. She can have an abortion or she can have a baby. Pro-choice means nothing more than that. Pro-life is the same. She may not have an elective abortion. That position means nothing about one’s opinion about what type of social welfare system we should have for indigent mothers to help them care for their children. You can be pro-life and support a socialist worker’s paradise with wide governmental help for poor mothers. You can be pro-life and support the system we have now. You can be pro-life and believe that helping the poor is best done through private charities and that government programs are an ineffective way of treating the overall problem. You can be pro-life and say fuck these women, I paid for my kids, so you pay for yours. Pro-life simply means an opposition to elective abortion, nothing more. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2019, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/143 "2019-05-30T05:00:39Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Pro-life simply means an opposition to elective abortion, nothing more. But they shouldn’t be allowed to just own that label, any more than someone on one side of some other hotly debated question should be able to label their side “pro-ethics” and have neutral observers describe them that way. The label itself is a kind of spin, propaganda even. Those outside of that faction should not help them spread this propaganda. And make no mistake: they invented this label knowing it was propaganda. It would have been much simpler to just call themselves “anti-abortion”. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2019, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/144 "2019-05-30T05:51:07Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > No, they would not be “by definition” (it’s possible of course that some of them \*could \*be), and I already explained why not. Try rereading what I posted above. I have read it. I just don’t think it’s realistic. I don’t believe there is any significant number of voters who would fit the description you’ve given. You’re saying these hypothetical voters are currently voting consistently for Republicans. But they’re right on the fence between voting for Democrats or Republicans. Enough so that one minor shift on a single issue would tip them over and turn them into people who will consistently vote for Democrats. I don’t think people like that exist. Anybody who is that close to switching parties is already doing so. They’re not consistently voting for Republicans or Democrats. They’re swing voters who go back and forth between the parties. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2019, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/145 "2019-05-30T07:13:23Z")
😕 Yes…and attracting swing voters to our side, even if just for one election, is a MAJOR part of what politics is all about! Lives (and quality of life for millions or even billions) depend on it. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2019, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/146 "2019-05-30T08:11:40Z")
> [@hesdeadjim](#): > > Nope. No one except the two people who created the baby are in any way responsible for supporting said baby, regardless of what Millennials and liberals think. Again, it has nothing whatsoever to do with who’s responsible for whom, who deserves what and so on. It’s about what works. Forcing poor people to carry their pregnancies to term and not helping them any does not, can not work. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2019, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/147 "2019-05-30T08:17:12Z")
> [@Uncommon\_Sense](#): > > People have unwanted and unplanned babies all the time without dropping them off at the front steps of the fire department. I’ve had a couple myself. You suck it up and do the right thing. It CAN be done… > There should be more local level community support for those who need help, however. I’m a supporter of community and local charities. Keep the Feds out. The charity model is what we had before state-run social securities - throughout the Middle Ages, Renaissance, Enlightenment. In a time when a lot more people believed in god and charity and the church was vastly more active there. Oh, and monasteries were rich as fuck and took some foundlings in, too. It didn’t work, and it wasn’t enough. It most certainly wouldn’t work in the era of “fuck you, got mine”. That’s why we moved on to state-run social programs funded with taxes rather than voluntary charity. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2019, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/148 "2019-05-30T14:20:29Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I didn’t read the thread that way. Social programs are here already. The question, at least in my mind, was that there was some sort of personal obligation on the side of the pro-life movement to contribute. But that is not the question. That you have chosen to interpret it that way, and insist upon continuing to interpret it that way in spite of being told that that is not a valid way to interpret it is not my fault. I do not know why you would choose to do that. Can we agree at this point that the way that you read the thread is not he way that anyone on the pro-choice side actually thinks? Yes, social programs are here. However, not only do those social programs not do enough to assist those who are in need, but they are being threatened to be cut further by pretty much the same folks that want more babies, babies of which, will stretch these already inadequate programs to the breaking point. > [@](#): > > You are pro-choice. She can have an abortion or she can have a baby. Pro-choice means nothing more than that. And there you are wrong again. She can have an abortion or a baby is only one plank in the platform of the pro-choice movement. We are also for giving her choices of birth control, and education to use it properly. We are for supporting her in whatever choice she wants to make. We want to make sure that she doesn’t feel forced to have an abortion because she can’t see how to support herself and the baby. We want her to make a choice not based on fear or coercion. We want her and her child to have many options that are currently denied to less fortunate families. So yeah, while pro-choice doesn’t cover every possible choice, for instance, we do not advocate for your choice to murder your neighbor, or if you come whining that you only have 700 guns to choose from, we will not lobby to expand your choices there, we do want women and families to have many choices in how to raise their families. So, when it comes to anything to do with reproduction or family planning or family raising or education or nutrition or education, the vast majority of those who are for a woman’s right to choose are also for giving them the resources to support those decisions. > [@](#): > > Pro-life is the same. She may not have an elective abortion. That position means nothing about one’s opinion about what type of social welfare system we should have for indigent mothers to help them care for their children. You can be pro-life and support a socialist worker’s paradise with wide governmental help for poor mothers. You can be pro-life and support the system we have now. You can be pro-life and believe that helping the poor is best done through private charities and that government programs are an ineffective way of treating the overall problem. You can be pro-life and say fuck these women, I paid for my kids, so you pay for yours. > > Pro-life simply means an opposition to elective abortion, nothing more. Right, which is why the label is intentionally deceptive, as it has nothing to do with any sort of respect for life. Just as the PETA has nothing to do with ethics, NAMBLA has nothing to do with love, and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has nothing to do with democracy. They are labels that have been chosen to put a positive spin on an odious policy position. Since you are being honest here about the utter falsehood that is the label, “Pro-Life”, how do you feel about the “Pro-Birth” label? It is far less of a lie, and far more descriptive. You still can use it for the “feels”, people like babies, they like births. Be honest with your followers, if you have to resort to deception and outright lies to get your way, is your way really the morally superior one? ---
**Author:** ![CelticKnot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/celticknot/32/3392_2.png) [@CelticKnot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CelticKnot)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2019, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/149 "2019-06-01T00:29:19Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > Absolutely not. The “Pro-Choice” movement is not going around insisting that anyone has the right to order a pregnant woman to have an abortion. All they want is for women to have the choice to have a legal abortion. > > Whoopi Goldberg is pro-choice, yet she supported her daughter’s decision not to have an abortion. My sister and her legally wedded wife are all for women’s rights, yet they took in their granddaughter and her twin babies and supported them. > > It’s all about legal abortion and _CHOICE_. > > The fact that the “pro-choice” anti-abortion movement labels us “pro-abortion” shows how disgusting their tactics are. > [@UltraVires](#): > > This has been stated in this and other threads. “Pro-life” is shorthand for being against legal abortion in most instances. It does not mean life always and forever without exception. It is not a general commentary on a person’s overall moral philosophy anymore than “pro-choice” is. > > As I said above, is it wrong to call yourself pro-choice unless you support every choice at all times? Or is it just shorthand for your support for legal abortion? If pro-choice is really about choice, why do supporters fight tooth and nail any legislation that gives legal protection to healthcare workers who oppose abortion and demand they be compelled to participate in abortions? Why should a pharmacist be forced to choose between their career and supplying a drug that is not necessary to save a life? Why should a nurse be forced to choose between her livelihood and refusing to assist in an optional surgery? (not talking about the life of a mother here). ---
**Author:** ![CelticKnot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/celticknot/32/3392_2.png) [@CelticKnot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CelticKnot)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2019, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/150 "2019-06-01T00:37:53Z")
Why do so many arguments supporting abortion seem to be based on an assumption that all children from unplanned or unwanted pregnancies will have a life of misery so that they should be aborted to prevent that? That’s like saying, cancer is a terrible disease. You might get it, so you should take no chances and end it all now. Why do so many people reject adoption as a better alternative than abortion? There are millions of parents on adoption waiting lists, and God knows how many others who cannot afford to go through the process and will never be able to adopt. It sickens me when a woman says that 9 months of convenience is more valuable than another human’s entire life. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2019, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/151 "2019-06-01T01:58:00Z")
I am sympathetic to that argument. But I would still like to know why anyone else should go along with the blatant propaganda inherent in using the label “pro-life” as nothing more than a synonym for “antiabortion”. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2019, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/152 "2019-06-01T02:25:58Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > 😕 Yes…and attracting swing voters to our side, even if just for one election, is a MAJOR part of what politics is all about! Lives (and quality of life for millions or even billions) depend on it. And not repelling other swing voters is another major part of what politics is all about. You’re basically suggesting a presidential candidate should burn an American flag because he would attract the arsonist demographic to his side. But you’re ignoring the reality that most arsonists aren’t going to be impressed at seeing one flag being burned; they like to see entire building being set on fire. Meanwhile a lot of other people are going to be appalled at a candidate who burns an American flag. So five arsonists are impressed enough to vote for the candidate and five thousand other people decide to vote against him. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2019, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/153 "2019-06-01T02:27:29Z")
> [@CelticKnot](#): > > If pro-choice is really about choice, why do supporters fight tooth and nail any legislation that gives legal protection to healthcare workers who oppose abortion and demand they be compelled to participate in abortions? Why should a pharmacist be forced to choose between their career and supplying a drug that is not necessary to save a life? Why should a nurse be forced to choose between her livelihood and refusing to assist in an optional surgery? (not talking about the life of a mother here). Because it’s not their body that’s involved so it shouldn’t be their choice to make. If you’re a Jehovah’s Witness, you might believe blood transfusions are wrong. You have the right to refuse to receive a blood transfusion. But you don’t have the right to tell other people they can’t have a blood transfusion because you think they’re wrong. And that’s true even if you’re a medical professional. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2019, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/154 "2019-06-01T02:41:19Z")
If at some future point vegetarians become 70% of the population, would it be wrong for them to push for a federal law banning meat? (What if India did this now?) ---
**Author:** ![Thrull](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Thrull](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thrull)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2019, 8:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/155 "2019-06-01T08:54:38Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > A lot of pro-choicers like to argue that if pro-lifers were really pro-life, they’d be supporting babies and single mothers, etc. after birth, not just caring about the fetus’ life pre-birth but then ignoring it post-birth. > > I fully agree with that - however, just because someone opposes abortion, does not logically mean that they are on the hook to take care of someone after birth. The closest analogy would be PETA. PETA opposes animal experimentation and the killing of animals; however, that does not mean that PETA is ethically obligated to feed, care for, and host all the animals that would be released if the farmers and animal-experimenters really were to release the animals. The ethical obligation of PETA, from their perspective, is simply to stop the “animal abuse.” What happens after the abuse or killing is ceased, is not their responsibility. > Again, I fully agree that pro-lifers should do more to care for mothers and post-birth babies, but the idea that if you speak out against something you consider wrong, means you are therefore obligated to do Thing A, Thing B, Thing C, etc. in caring and responsibility doesn’t make sense. That would be like saying that you can’t object to your neighbors abusing their kids if you aren’t willing to rear and raise their kids yourself. As a general rule, you’re right. Being pro-life doesn’t necessitate that you have to support either babies or mothers. However, a good deal of the argument from pro-lifers is that life is sacred. This would imply that they believe all life is sacred not just fetal life. That being the case, one has to wonder why they feel they don’t have to support women and babies. If it’s sacred one would argue they have to be as supportive to those groups as they are to fetuses. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2019, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/156 "2019-06-01T13:41:37Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > If at some future point vegetarians become 70% of the population, would it be wrong for them to push for a federal law banning meat? (What if India did this now?) The majority of meat-eaters eat meat because they think it’s delicious and more satisfying than a plate full of greens. No one is eating meat because they’d literally die without it (though I suppose there are some folks who think that’s what would happen to them). And no one is eating meat because being a vegetarian would totally upturn their life by causing them to lose employment, housing, friends and family, and school opportunities. No one is eating meat because they’ve already got a big household to support and they just can’t afford another celery-eater. But I would protest a federal law banning meat. Why? Because I don’t want to live in a society where I have to be paranoid about being caught with “contraband” in my lunch pail. There are also ways to allow people to consume animal flesh ethically and sustainably. If I want to eat the vermin that wreck havoc in my backyard garden, by golly, I should be able to do that. Fuck what some anemic pretentious vegan might think. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2019, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/157 "2019-06-01T14:23:22Z")
But should a 70% majority have the _right_, ethically speaking, to make that the law? I assume there are some cases where you might oppose a bill, and if it becomes law you seek its repeal, but you would not claim it was fundamentally undemocratic for an overwhelming majority to exert its power in that way. I am wondering if a law against eating meat would be like that. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2019, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/158 "2019-06-01T16:00:26Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > But should a 70% majority have the _right_, ethically speaking, to make that the law? I assume there are some cases where you might oppose a bill, and if it becomes law you seek its repeal, but you would not claim it was fundamentally undemocratic for an overwhelming majority to exert its power in that way. I am wondering if a law against eating meat would be like that. If a 70% majority voted to re-enslave the12% of the population with slave ancestors, wouldn’t you call this “undemocratic”? I agree that a 70% majority voting for a meat ban wouldn’t be undemocratic. But a 70% majority voting to take bodily autonomy rights away from 50% of the population would be, IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2019, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/159 "2019-06-01T17:08:30Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > If at some future point vegetarians become 70% of the population, would it be wrong for them to push for a federal law banning meat? (What if India did this now?) It would not be wrong for them to push for such a ban, but that doesn’t mean that it would go through. Most likely what would happen would be that there would be first a removal of the subsides that our tax dollars got to to make meat cheaper. Then maybe add on some excise taxes to offset the greenhouse emissions created by our four legged meat factories. An outright ban would take more than 70%. ---
**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2019, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/160 "2019-06-01T17:30:28Z")
Unfortunately, it would be democratic. That’s why you need, and we have, a constitutional democracy and not an unlimited one. Even a constitution providing minority rights isn’t a perfect protection, of course, because people can decide to change a constitution; and if no method is provided to change it, they can destroy the whole thing. There is no such thing as a perfect protection, against slavery or against anything else. But a constitution, or at least one with the equivalent of a Bill of Rights in it, is supposed to make it considerably more difficult to remove or ignore minority rights than a purely democratic system would allow. ETA: if you remove subsidies, bear in mind you’re also removing them for the corn and soybeans that provide a whole lot of the products most vegetarians in this society are eating. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602.md?page=9)