It is no more ridiculous than criticizing the term “pro-life” because we don’t support life in every single context. Feel free to say that we are pro-just in that one case-life.
Opposing abortion does not, necessarily, require support for babies or mothers after birth
If you believe a fetus is a human then it does. Birth is a morally meaningless event if that is your belief. So what applies before birth applies afterwards, you must do everything in your power to ensure the survival of a human being even at the risk of your own life.
Succinct. Well done.
Disagree. What did you (the general you) do to help me take care of my child? Nothing. I (and her mother and our extended family) did that. So why should I be responsible for taking care of someone else’s child?
If General You is required to prevent harm to children before they are born then General You has to do the same thing after they are born.
If they changed their slogan to “Up with sex!” they might get somewhere.
This may come as a shock to you, but I’m against you killing your kids even after they’re born. That in no way obligates me to feed and clothe your children. It obligates you to do so.
Oh how easy life would be if only I could do something immoral to ease by burdens, and if denied the ability to do so, could just shift the burden to someone else.
In general, the pro-abortion side seems to confuse “Babies should be provided support” with “Babies should be provided support by someone other than their parents.” And they similarly fail to separate doing or supporting something with being obligated to do so.
Being pro-life obligates a person to nothing more than the definition of that term. They may choose to support social welfare programs, WIC, or children’s hospitals. They are not obligated to do so.
But anyway, why are we even talking about babies and mothers? I’ve been assured again and again that abortion is about pregnancy, not motherhood. Pro-abortionists are always going on and on about unwanted “tenants” in their bodies and the dangers of pregnancy and how they can’t possibly expect women to do what 130 million other women do every year. They make it all about what to do with “my body,” so why are we even bringing up their wallets?
Libtard: “I think semi-automatic weapons should be banned.”
Virtuous Conservative: “But I need those weapons for self-defense! You have to ensure that I’m protected from criminals before you ban my semi-automatic weapons.”
Libtard: “Why am I am responsible for your life? I’ve managed to take care of myself and my property without semi-automatic weapons! Why are you making me responsible for your safety?!”
Virtuous Conservative: "Because, libtard. You’re the one trying to change status quo. You’re the one trampling on existing rights. It is incumbent on you to address the drivers that cause people like me to buy semi-automatic weapons if you want us to take you seriously. Crying about the scary guns isn’t going to do a damn thing to make me move over to your side. It just makes me think you’re a sanctimonious idiot who has never even touched a gun.
Libtard: YOU DON’T NEED SEMI-AUTOMATIC WEAPONS! THEY SHOULD BE BANNED AND I DON’T CARE WHAT ANYONE HAS TO SAY ABOUT IT!!!
If you can see how stupid the libtard is being in this hypothetical conversation, maybe you can understand why you aren’t getting a whole lot of respect here.
It takes a village dude. Teachers taught your child, bus drivers got them to school. Police made sure the streets were safe for your kid…
I think that you missed this part of my post when you quoted the bit that you quoted"
In other words: if you support the existence of social welfare programs, and don’t object to paying taxes for them, then I wasn’t criticizing you. (About that, anyway. Other issues may apply.)
Fine. You got me. I’m convinced. If babies aren’t aborted, I now agree we should provide them with teachers to teach them, bus drivers to get them to school, and police to make sure the streets are safe for them.
We can close the thread now. All has been resolved.
:dubious: Uh, “murder”, unlike “pro-life”, is something more than just a rhetorical “label”: it’s officially a crime. As Bryan Ekers pointed out, if somebody is trying to massively modify what counts as a crime in a society, and/or what the punishment for such a crime should be, while completely disregarding the predictable social consequences of that modification, that person is being wilfully irresponsible.
Similarly, anti-abortion conservatives who want to saddle our society with millions of unwanted babies by redefining abortion to be murder, without bothering to figure out any pragmatic way to address the massive support and care deficits that those unwanted babies will inevitably face, are being wilfully irresponsible.
Well obviously if you have lots of moneys you won’t be eligible for food stamps, clothes donations and similar care packages so that’s fine. As for the rest, your being loaded doesn’t really factor in the availability of free schools, or free school lunches. Besides your being loaded means you (hopefully…) pay more taxes, which takes care of that “problem” : you’re already paying more for the “free” school that the poor 15 year-old you and your moral buddies forced to keep a kid she didn’t want.
The underlying logic isn’t to “punish” anti-abortion folks (it’s not like there’s a “pro choice” deductible, is it ?), or to give every new parent the same amount of money out of some stupid notion of “equality”. The underlying logic is that I, and everyone else, have a vested interest in living in a society of healthy, educated, hopefully not *too *fucked in the head people who don’t need to steal my shit nor are driven to break my shit in anger and hopelessness. More babies means more food, school, training, buses, nurses and so on are needed ; means taxes will in turn need jacked up to pay for it. It’s really not a complex, layered bit of thinking. No abortion means higher social costs means higher taxes. Anything else is schyzophrenic at best, and dysfunctional in the mid- to long run.
I think that being human requires supporting other people. After all, they support us all the time.
But I guess I should take my socialist views someplace else…
Conservatives have no problem predicting the negative outcomes associated with other kinds of proposed laws.
Amnesty for illegal aliens? “OMG. All those terrorists and criminals and god-knows-what-else in our country, getting on welfare and pissing off all the good immigrants and stealing our jobs? No way!”
Subsidies for renewable energy? “OMG. What if the wind stops blowing and the clouds cover the sun? I won’t be able to watch TV anymore!”
Expanded Medicare? “OMG. Our taxes are gonna go up just so some lazy unemployed hypochondriac can practically live in the doctor’s office waiting room!”
Gun control? “OMG. We are gonna be sitting ducks for when another tyrant like that Obama takes over the White House. And all the illegal aliens will rape our women and we won’t be able to defend them!”
But there are no horrible unintended costs associated with an abortion ban. All they can see are cute babies. They don’t see dead or permanently crippled women. They don’t see increased costs associated with ramped-up child protection services, foster care, mental health services, law enforcement, and the criminal justice system. And you better believe they will fight these increased costs with every grain of their being, repeating what UltraVires eloquently said (paraphrased): “WHY AM I RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR KID?!”
These people have the audacity to tell us they are carrying out Jesus’s will by banning abortion, and yet they say shit like this. It blows my mind how so many people can be so foolish.
That’s a pretty bad analogy, because the vast majority of abortions in the US are done on healthy fetuses of healthy mothers. So if your analogy was going to work, we would investigate and find that the two-year olds being killed are pretty average - no health issues, no behavior issues - their parents just don’t want them.
Regards,
Shodan
Never mind the kid and abortion. All those things – people in need of more investment in health care, justice, security issues? You know the position: *“Consequences of YOUR bad life decisions, or your parents’. Too bad, life just is that way. Live with it or get over it. Don’t tax me to pay for it.”
*
Finally. That took far longer than we thought.
You and your family grew all the food that nourished your child?
You and your family made all the medicine to care for your child?
You and your family felled the trees, hewed the wood and built the home that sheltered your child?
You and your family wove the cloth that clothed your child?
You and your family gathered the fuel to warm your child in the winter, and built the machines to cool your child in the summer?
Of course you didn’t. You played your part in our society, providing a service that you are skilled at providing and in exchange, other people, playing their parts of our society, provided things that they are skilled at providing, like food, shelter, fuel, education, and all the other things that families need to care for a child.
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.