Pro-Life - at least in part - means that one is concerned about the welfare of all children - that one seeks to take care of all children. Pro-Life conservatives regularly argue against welfare - against helping poor children. How is this not hypocrisy ?
Pro-life is just code for government take-over of a woman's womb. Nothing more. "Pro-lifers" never talk about improving hospital maternity wards or funding incubation units or well-baby clinics. It's all about FORCING women to give up control of their body. Nothing more. They never talk about reducing the factors that lead women to choose abortion; economic factors, health issues, fear of unstable income. It's all about controlling a woman's uterus. Nothing more.
I completely agree that the desire to control others is at the root of this issue - in this case through physical violence (Law) on the basis of religious belief.
It mostly means Anti Death - as in, do not kill. Let me explain it this way: There's a homeless person sleeping in a cardboard box. You just walk by and don't do anything. Another person comes by and lights the cardboard box on fire. Now, is what you did (i.e. not helping) as bad as what that other person did? It's basically the difference between deontological and consequentialist perspectives, if you want to see it that way. It only seems like a paradox if you're looking at it from a consequentialist perspective. It mostly applies to abortion but also applies to euthanasia in old age, or for young children with certain medical prognosis. We don't just kill them.
The entire thread rests on the assumption that welfare has positive effects. Which is silly, since you're addressing people who believe it doesn't. Giving money to people for making children doesn't improve the children's well-being. It's even arguably the opposite. What it does is encourage poor people to make a lot of children and care for them very poorly, since this is what maximizes the profit.
This is an assertion with absolutely no proof or common sense to it: "Giving money to people for making children doesn't improve the children's well-being. It's even arguably the opposite."
- Makes two posts on this thread that are baseless assertions - Blames others for making baseless assertions.
I didn't admit anything. Just pointed out the double standard. Got anything to contribute to this discussion or are you just here to troll?
Welfare is not giving money to people for making children....Welfare is to care for the children...do you object? Can people on welfare have 2 kids and then you don't want to feed the third or fourth? What do you want done with them? What "profit" is maximized?
You admitted it ad there was nothing about a double standard. Thank you. And, oh, be careful with troll accusations, I would suggest.
The OP says "pro-life conservatives argue against welfare". I'm pretty sure that sentence is about government money, not the well-being of children. I believe in a degressive system : the more children you have, the less money per child. Should fall off hard around 2. So they'll never starve, it just removes the incentive to be full time welfare queens. Profit from getting government money for simply having a child while not caring about them.
Uh, DUH, what do you think PAYS FOR the welfare of children...the Tooth Fairy??? So, it's "Punish children for being born to poor people"....OK, I got it....I don't think it's very nice but I got you... Oh, the myth of the welfare queen...ya so many women have gone from Welfare to being millionaires in a grand plot to get rich..…. Uhhh, excuse me!! But you don't know they don't care about their children while YOU have exhibited a total lack of caring for children....
Pro life has zero do to with concern for children. For the most part, their concern stops when the baby takes the first breath. Just like Democrats pretending to care about the poor. Their concern is limited to the amount of power they can seize.
Good question! I think that you are correct we "conservatives" who are interested in the Jewish and / or Christian scriptures, pick and choose which parts of scripture fits with what we want to think...... and we tend to ignore or at least downplay other scriptures that challenge us to go to higher levels of thought and behaviour. Would a Basic Minimum Income dramatically reduce abortions? Here is a verse that throws many of us conservative Christian off from noticing other interesting verses that would challenge us..... 2Thessalonians 3:10 "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat." Such as: Act 2:44 "And all that believed were together, and had all things common;" Act 4:32 "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common." Revelation 2:4 "Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love."
I challenge all cons to consider if you are 'pro-birth' or 'pro-life', then take the necessary steps.
I do think that calling myself pro-life....... and then being completely unconcerned about the destruction of the environment..... would be hypocritical of me. Should Sorek 2 be in Australia or California?
Abortion rates remain the same whether legal or illegal. The difference is the danger to the health of the woman and whether they have access to birth control. With access to reliable available birth control the abortion rate plummets. Pro-life people should logically be pushing the use of birth control which Planned Parenthood provides to low income women because that is the only thing that has been proven to lower the abortion rate. Why are they silent? https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-worldwide
They aren't silent, they are trying desperately to shut down Planned Parenthood ….the very place that helps women NOT have unwanted pregnancy. But it helps women so Republicans hate it...
