I keep hearing this. And find that it is often rubbish. In that same church I grew up, there was an incredibly high percentage of foster children as well as adoptees. Why? It wasn't because they thought that it only counted while in the womb...
Outlawing all abortions
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Wow, how very stereotypical of you. Just because a person doesn't believe the GOVERNMENT should be involved doesn't mean they won't try to help those in need. Most Christian (as well as other religions) do vast amounts of charity work. I also think you would be hard pressed to find many Christians who are against "any taxes for that purpose".
If you don't wish for an unborn child to be entitled to basic human rights, then that is your choice and it is a valid position to take. But please cut out the demeaning crap for those who do not share your opinion, because you are way off base with your above lines of B.S.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Not to mention organizations like Boys Town etc... who help troubled kids... typically from liberals who again shirked their responsibility. (one stereotype deserves another
)
And I find that that statement is often rubbish. Even on this site, you're probably only one who's anti-choice and has an adopted a child or even plans to adopt one.
Please. Dumya himself just vetoed a bill that would provide health care coverage to children while he's appointed anti-choice justices to the bench. Its not a stereotype. Its a fact: the conservative base wants to erode a woman's choice to give birth while they also want to erode government initiatives to help care for those children. HYPOCRITES in the first degree.
How do you define "anti-choice"?
I do not believe that making laws against it would solve the issue and therefore do not propose any such laws. Does that make me "pro-choice"?
I argue what is right or wrong, I do not make laws.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Ok... and how many people on this site have kids in general? Think about the conservatives on this site that also have religious affiliations. Then ask how many of them have kids at all.
Next tell me why the Catholic church (among many others) have programs to help adopt children? Why do they have programs to help troubled teens? If they care so little for the children post-birth?
If you want to limit a right of a woman to choose, the very least you could do, would be to promote more access to contraception and healthcare, and broaden the base of people willing to adopt.
You vote (mostly) for a party that (largely) limits women's options in contraception, healthcare, and votes against gay partners right to adopt children.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Bullshit in the first degree. Again, as a liberal you think the GOVERNMENT is the only functioning body that can provide aid. That is bullshit. Anti-choice? Why not call it what it is?.... pro-life. Just because you believe it is okay to deny an unborn child human rights doesn't mean that others share your views. You want to talk choice... how many of those aborted kids do you think would CHOOSE to have their brains scrambled?
Genetics defines the unborn child as a unique human life. Their is no arguing with the science. I respect the rights of people to say that the unborn child should not be entitled to basic human rights. That is a valid position. Just not one I agree with. Unless the mothers life is in danger, I do not believe her rights supercede the rights of the child.
I know this is not a popular opinion with women and I know that being a man it is easier for me to take that position. But I also cannot fight my genetic code.
uscitizen
Villified User
Yeah the priests "helped" those children for many years....
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
ah yes, the obligatory peanut gallery post. Thanks again for contributing so greatly to the discussion. You have provide so much food for thought.
Socrtease
Verified User
Yes but when it comes to insurance coverage for those oh so precious in utero lives post natally you can see with every vote (unless an election year looms) that those "pro-life" Republicans have no sympathy for children not smart enough to have been born to parents who could afford to have them.
As for the "pro-life" label, every person that I know who supports abortion rights is also a VERY STRONG supporter of contraception education starting when kids become sexually active, and programs that help people take care of their kids once born. Those are programs that help to make abortion the last choice a woman should have to make. The biological authoritarians in this country think that all pro-choice people run out and find all the pregnant women they can and try to convince them to have abortions.
As libertarian as I am I really don't have a problem with programs that take care of our youngest citizens that made no request to be born to poor, or the drug addicted or mothers who are just to young to properly take care of their kids. My grandmother was a nurse in the 30's and 40's and said that even in Oklahoma they would see every month a woman who had botched her own abortion or relied on a person to do the procedure in her kitchen. That is, whether it is concsious or not, the kind of world that biological authoritarians want.
Well, if you don't support bans or any legal restrictions then yes, you are pro-choice and I stand corrected.
Seeing as how you are prochoice and have adopted, that further strengthens my argument that the anti-choicers are the ones that don't want any governmental recourse for the kids they want to force into the world.
Socrtease
Verified User
Most abortions are in this country are first trimester. There is No BRAIN that is even capable of conscious thought in the first 12 weeks of conception so you are quite correct when you say that they would not choose to be aborted because CHOICE IS IMPOSSIBLE at that point of their life. Those unborn children would not choose ANYTHING. What you biological authoritarians do is equate the blastocyst and first trimester fetus with a born child and then play on emotion. You try to pretend that every abortion is this painful ripping of limbs that the first trimester fetus feels until life signs expire. It is BULLSHIT emotionalism.
Personally, I think that viability is the cut off and that standared continues to move back. After the first 12 weeks a woman SHOULD have made the decision to have an abortion or not and after that I think that the viablity of the child should play a huge part in whether or not a woman can get an abortion. Late term abortions are rare and should be. I have heard a very few reasons a woman should ever have to abort in the last 12 weeks.
Not that this site is a representative of the entire country, but it does hold to the truths that I've experienced in my lifetime and what can be seen by the number of orphaned children versus vocal anti-choicers: anti-choicers are all talk.