What it means to be pro life...

[Krsto]

A quote

I found this

"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life.

In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed.

And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there.

That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."​

discuss..........

I think we need to expand that to include the lives of people being killed by Israeli massacres of Palestinians and innocent civilians being massacred by American drone strikes in Yemen and other places. I do find the right wing to be rather hypocritical in promoting their pro-life agenda when they also support our "bomb first, ask questions later" foreign policy and Israel's 200 to 1 Palestinian to Israeli kill ratio and purposefully starving the survivors, and George W. Bush's economic sanctions against Saddam Hussein which led to over one million deaths, including half a million children - BEFORE 9/11.

 

[Rusha]

Rusha, adoption is not the answer to abortion . It's extremely difficult for children to be adopted, and so many wait years and years , even up to the point of reaching adolescence , and they never get adopted .
Pro-choicers aren't opposed to adoption per se; they just realize that it's totally unrealistic to expect every p[regnant woman who cannot support a child to put it up for adoption . This just doesn't work .

While there may be a few adoptions where children end up with less than desirable parents, the outcome is always the same: they are allowed to live. Adoption is an excellent option for poor mothers.

Women who believe they are incapable of caring and loving their child based on financial or emotional difficulties are selling themselves short.

 

[ok doser]

... many wait years and years , even up to the point of reaching adolescence...

vs those who are murdered in the womb

 

[chair]

...
In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed...

Most people are not perfectly moral, nor consistent in their morality.

 

[lighthouse99]

A quote

I found this

"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life.

In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed.

And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there.

That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."​

discuss..........

how utterly disingenuous. You dont even say WHO said this!!

Well, it hardly matters because a TRUE CHRISTIAN would never kill anyone except in self defense or defense of other innocents



:luigi:

 

[Granite]

While there may be a few adoptions where children end up with less than desirable parents, the outcome is always the same: they are allowed to live. Adoption is an excellent option for poor mothers.

Women who believe they are incapable of caring and loving their child based on financial or emotional difficulties are selling themselves short.

See, right there--this is where I take issue. I'd say these women should be in a position where they can decide the matter for themselves. You don't know them or their situation better than they do.

 

[Rusha]

See, right there--this is where I take issue. I'd say these women should be in a position where they can decide the matter for themselves. You don't know them or their situation better than they do.

I DO know that abortion always ends the life of an unborn baby. Their *situation* or who they are doesn't change the fact that the unborn baby is innocent and does not deserve to be intentionally killed.

 

[Granite]

I DO know that abortion always ends the life of an unborn baby. Their *situation* or who they are doesn't change the fact that the unborn baby is innocent and does not deserve to be intentionally killed.

I was more addressing the "selling short" bit. Look: If a gal wants to put her child up for adoption, something tells me she's literally the last person in the world who should be a mother, since by definition she doesn't want to be. If she wants to walk away, telling her she's "selling herself short" is close to the worst thing you can say to her. (And seriously: Why would you presume to say such a thing to a woman in financial or emotional difficulty? I'd say she's been through enough already.)

 

[This Charming Manc]

Would you support the right for parents to decide whether to kill there 2 week old child because they know what there situation is?

See, right there--this is where I take issue. I'd say these women should be in a position where they can decide the matter for themselves. You don't know them or their situation better than they do.

 

[Granite]

Would you support the right for parents to decide whether to kill there 2 week old child because they know what there situation is?

Usually you're better than this.

 

[Rusha]

I was more addressing the "selling short" bit. Look: If a gal wants to put her child up for adoption, something tells me she's literally the last person in the world who should be a mother, since by definition she doesn't want to be. If she wants to walk away, telling her she's "selling herself short" is close to the worst thing you can say to her. (And seriously: Why would you presume to say such a thing to a woman in financial or emotional difficulty? I'd say she's been through enough already.)

By selling themselves short, I am simply pointing out that it's okay to be wary, scared and unsure when it comes to motherhood.

Killing an unborn child because of the above is not okay.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Throw more money at a problem caused by liberalism. What a grand idea TCM!

I think you have gone off the deep end, what are you arguing against here?

The point of the post original post is that its inconsistent to be pro birth but then not wanting to help deal with the consequences of the pro birth stance in supporting children through life.

The best "support" a child could have is to be born into a home that has a mom and dad (husband and wife) in it. You liberals always seem to think that throwing money at a problem is the answer. Your no-fault divorce legislation, decriminalizing cohabitation laws, and of course abortion laws, along with making people financially dependent on the state instead of themselves, is the problem.

 

[Granite]

By selling themselves short, I am simply pointing out that it's okay to be wary, scared and unsure when it comes to motherhood.

And walking away's an equally valid response too for some.

 

[Rusha]

And walking away's an equally valid response too for some.

Not when it includes intentionally killing their unborn baby ...

 

[Granite]

Not when it includes intentionally killing their unborn baby ...

Sometimes you really remind me of them. Just sayin'.

 

[Nick M]

What it means to be pro life...

It means you do vote for politicians whose goal is to abort babies. I am not talking about those that are shamefully indifferent about murder.

 

[This Charming Manc]

Well I don't see the difference, between the rights pre and post birth.

Your argument is ridiculous in the post birth environment.

I think its shows it not so sound in the pre birth situation as well.

As a society we choose to limit the rights of parents to do as they wish with there children, for the protection of there children. This is normal agreed and in no way controversial.

So what is the differentiating factor which means pre birth (or some other arbitray date) that the mother should have total rights over the life of the child, and wider society should have no say in the matter?

Usually you're better than this.

 

[Granite]

Well I don't see the difference, between the rights pre and post birth.

Your argument is ridiculous in the post birth environment.

I think its shows it not so sound in the pre birth situation as well.

As a society we choose to limit the rights of parents to do as they wish with there children, for the protection of there children. This is normal agreed and in no way controversial.

So what is the differentiating factor which means pre birth (or some other arbitray date) that the mother should have total rights over the life of the child, and wider society should have no say in the matter?

I think you asked that question because you don't understand what I'm talking about...my point was that sometimes giving a child up is the best thing one can do, and saying a woman's "short changing" herself by making that decision is out of line.

 

[This Charming Manc]

Again a right winger nutter goes off the deep end?

Being pro life means you vote for pro abort politicians, what on earth are you talking about?

It means you do vote for politicians whose goal is to abort babies. I am not talking about those that are shamefully indifferent about murder.

 

[This Charming Manc]

what do you mean by giving up? abortion or adoption?

I think you asked that question because you don't understand what I'm talking about...my point was that sometimes giving a child up is the best thing one can do, and saying a woman's "short changing" herself by making that decision is out of line.