I’m not saying anything about what pro-choicers believe at all, and believing one thing about one group doesn’t force me to believe the opposite about their opponents. Anyway: the anti-choice crowd doesn’t expect the babies they would force to be carried to term to be left on the curb, they expect some people somewhere to support them. Of course they expect this. I don’t see why anyone would think otherwise.
And you can take your insults and put them where the sun shineth not.
In a sense we are responsible for our own lives and that is why I wonder why the extreme conservatives want to stop people from being responsible parents( by using safe sex practices) then complain because they have to pay taxes to support the one’s who are not. Some times unforseen circumstances come up and people need support from the rest, but I agree there is a lot gained by being self sufficient; I have always been, and would have been ashamed to have someone else have to take care of me if I were able to do so myself.
They (many) claim to be Christian, but Jesus was a Liberal not a letter of the law pusher, as a matter of fact he treated them with contempt, He said the law was made for man, not man for the law. There is a big difference between social and fiscal conservatives.
I’m sure you can see the difference between the family of a child taking care of that child versus the government forcing other, unrelated people to take care of that child by confiscating their wealth. That was the point of my response. The idiocy of your statement in this context is that if someone disagrees with being taxed to support another, then this is the equivalent of allowing a child to be left on a curb to die.
Nobody would let a baby left on a curb die. The difference is that I would help the baby while YOU would apparently contact the government and demand that people be taxed in order to help the baby.
I think you are confusing conservative with religious right. There is a difference…even between a social conservative and those on the religious right.
You are correct. Jesus was a Liberal but I doubt he felt that people should be forced to do good at the tip of a Roman spear. What would you think of someone who gives a significant amount to the charity of their choice but balks at having the government forcibly take his/her money in order to give it to people that the government decides should be helped? I know that you can see the difference between the two.
Since the base of the Republican Party is the religious right, and not teaching responsible parenting (making sure one can support the child they bring into the world) it takes more than a few dollars to support a child from conception to adulthood. Just look to Haiti and other 3d world countries where people have many children they cannot afford to care for. If a woman had the morning after pill she could avoid the possibility of concieving a child she can’t afford to care for,physically,emotionally, or financially,(or some methode of birth control) she could have only the children she could afford. As it is, the right want to force a woman not to use birthcontrol like the Morning after pill because there is a small chance there was a conception, They say it is a human life,well human life is in all the sperm that didn’t win the race, so men should not be able to ejaculate unless all the sperm became children…sound foolish, yes, that is one of my points!
If the child needs support and women are forced to bear children either because of no birth control available, or her religion teaches she cannot practice it because it is a great sin, then should we just let the children die? I think we should start teaching responsible parenting when a child is young and what we owe to that child once it is conceived. If we did this there would be no need for a woman to need an abortion or her other choice(which seems to be the case in Africa) to have 5 babies and see them starve to a slow death or have other health problems.
As a post script: Jesus also told the rich man to sell what he had and give it to the poor if he wanted to follow Jesus. So in a way he was forcing the man to support yhr poor.
As a post script: Jesus also told the rich man to sell what he had and give it to the poor if he wanted to follow Jesus. So in a way he was forcing the man to support the poor.
I don’t see your point. Yes, Jesus recognized that. This is why He preached about giving to those in need. I don’t remember Jesus being a Robin Hood figure and taking from anyone, nor do I remember Him advocating that.
No. Read my post again. I’m not talking about ifs, and I’m not talking about taxes. If the anti-choice crowds wants to force women to bear children, then they must expect someone to care for that child. Someone else. Someone not them.
No kidding. I didn’t say anyone would. I said the anti-choice crowd does, in fact, expect others to care for these babies they’re so concerned about.
You should read my post again. Being pro-life is the equivalent, in their mind, of being anti-murder. This means they believe nobody has the right to take a life and says nothing about who must support any life.
There is a difference between people willing to care for the life of another and being compelled, by law, to chip in for supporting another life. Many people, pro-life and pro-choice, would willingly donate to an organization willing to care for unwanted children. This has nothing to do with government telling us we MUST support someone else. This also has nothing to do with pro-choice or pro-life. THAT is the distinction I was making.
While you seem to have scraped past the rules by attacking the post instead of the poster in each of these comments, your rhetoric is still much too inflammatory for a serious discussion.
Back off.
That goes for EVERYONE else, as well. I realize that this is a passion promoting topic, but everyone needs to check back on the heat and try to shed a bit more light on the issues.
[ /Moderating ]
If the rich man wanted to get to heaven he would have to give his riches to the poor, and then follow Jesus, so it was a threat in a way.If you want to go to heaven, give your riches away, was the choice he had.
People of both sides do donate to the ready born, but there are still a lot of people going hungry and living in poverty so apparently they are not giving enough. They want a law to force (in a way) a impoverished woman to bear a child even though she may not be able to suport it, physically,emotionallty, or financially.
Forcing unwanted children to be born does compel someone to raise them, whether you wish it or not. Interesting how the welfare of these precious zygotes falls by the wayside once you’ve forced their mothers to give birth. Pro-life indeed.
Maybe absurd would have been a better word? My intention was not to insult the poster and I certainly was not trying to “scrape past the rules.” My apologies.