What it means to be pro life...

[Nazaroo]

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 don't know who the person being quoted is addressing or referring to.

(1) Every person I've ever met who was anti-abortion was also pro-children.

One of the most dedicated and active anti-abortionists I knew was
a Roman Catholic mother of 8 who loved her own children
and adopted me as number 9 without blinking an eye or hesitating,
in spite of financial hardships. Her house was a home of love and compassion,
and also full of noise and kids and teens and strife.

I do believe there may be a few politicians (lawyers) who merely pose as anti-abortion,
and don't care about children. The reason I believe this is because its obvious
that all politicians are homosexual pedophile ring operators.
But abortion just happens to be an unavoidable political topic for all democracies,
because of Democrats and Liberals, who are also homosexual faggots.

I'm very unlikely to ever meet anyone from this small group of criminals.


(2) One can be totally anti-tax (which is a racket for robbing honest people by rich queers),
and still be anti-abortion and pro-child support by parents and community,
including churches.

In fact, if churches weren't so busy getting rich by stealing widows' inheritance,
and defrauding attendies, and then spending the money on fancy cars, Leer jets,
and massive private estates, there'd be plenty of money available to support
children in or out of wedlock.

This kind of provocative quotation is aimed at painting all concerned people
who care about abortion as if they were just the same as a handful of phoney politicians.

Its a sophisticated, slanderous, ad hominen attack, disguised as 'reason'.

 

[Nazaroo]

Pro life needs to go far beyond being pro birth.

Sure does, but pro-life to be meaningful probably means not just life versus death,
but a concern for the quality of life,
and provision so that those who deserve quality of life inherent in being human and innocent
receive sufficient quality of life,
while those who despise quality of life for others and who forfeit their own right
to quality of life are denied that quality of life.

in other words, a death penalty for murderers and those who commit heinous sins
but refuse to repent and join the Christian community.

 

[Granite]

No thanks. I read it fine the first time. My sole concern is for the unborn and BORN children. Forgetting them once they are born is not an option ...

It is if your only solution is "God will provide." Seriously, that's what this eventually boils down to.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

...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...

America is a world leader (if not the world leader) in social (i.e. socialist) services programs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_programs_in_the_United_States


yet: 1.2 million babies are aborted a year.

Yet another liberal lie exposed.

 

[Stripe]

Who doesn't want children to be fed, housed, etc?

Nobody. Typical of the pro-aborts, they make a rash of stupid accusations without being able to name one person who upholds the nonsense they spout, all the while themselves backing the murder of unborn children.

They desperately want the conversation to be about something other than their twisted worldview.

 

[gcthomas]

They desperately want the conversation to be about something other than their twisted worldview.

... while your language suggests uncomprehending dismissal of the whole argument.

You choosd specifically emotive word choices to avoid talking about the real differences between the three sides, preferring instead to resort to ad homs.

There are good and moral people on all sides, so there is no need to keep up with the indiscriminate character attacks. Stick to the actual argument and try to actually understand the reasoning of those you disagree with.

 

[chrysostom]

you are not pro life
if
you don't vote republican

 

[Rusha]

It is if your only solution is "God will provide." Seriously, that's what this eventually boils down to.

Not according to Chrys.

you are not pro life
if
you don't vote republican

lain:

 

[This Charming Manc]

America is a world leader (if not the world leader) in social (i.e. socialist) services programs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_programs_in_the_United_States

I see you didn't read the article you posted.

As of 2011, the public social spending-to-GDP ratio in the United States was below the OECD average

So the USA lags behind most other western democracies in terms of social spending. So you posted the proof that you either are uniformed or lying which is it?

yet: 1.2 million babies are aborted a year.

Yet another liberal lie exposed.

No one was claiming that welfare stopped abortion, your arguing against a point now one has made.

 

[This Charming Manc]

I'm pro life, the person I quoted is pro life who are you raging about?

Nobody. Typical of the pro-aborts, they make a rash of stupid accusations without being able to name one person who upholds the nonsense they spout, all the while themselves backing the murder of unborn children.

They desperately want the conversation to be about something other than their twisted worldview.

 

[PureX]

We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."

discuss..........

You won't get that, here.

 

[Stripe]

Your language suggests uncomprehending dismissal of the whole argument.

What's not to comprehend? Moron OP accuses people of not caring about babies after they are born. However, no examples of such people can be found.

You choosd specifically emotive word choices to avoid talking about the real differences between the three sides, preferring instead to resort to ad homs.

There are only two sides. One side says it is not OK to murder babies, the other side says it is OK. OP is on the side of murder.

There are good and moral people on all sides, so there is no need to keep up with the indiscriminate character attacks. Stick to the actual argument and try to actually understand the reasoning of those you disagree with.

You cannot morally uphold the murder of babies. You cannot morally uphold abortion.

An actual argument wasn't presented in OP. It was just a smokescreen; an attempt to appear to have justified his pro-abortion stance. It was aimed at an imaginary foe.

 

[Stripe]

I'm pro life, the person I quoted is pro life who are you raging about?

Nope. Neither of you are pro-life. However, you are both liars.

 

[This Charming Manc]

Why are we not pro life?

Why am I liar?

You seem to be making an arse of yourself here.

Id stop digging in.

Nope. Neither of you are pro-life. However, you are both liars.

 

[This Charming Manc]

What's not to comprehend? Moron OP accuses people of not caring about babies after they are born. However, no examples of such people can be found.

I would say 90% of the pro lifers on here are also anti tax, anti welfare, anti government education, anti free available healthcare for all.

Would you not agree?

There are only two sides. One side says it is not OK to murder babies, the other side says it is OK. OP is on the side of murder.

No i'm pro life always have been.

You cannot morally uphold the murder of babies. You cannot morally uphold abortion.

agreed

An actual argument wasn't presented in OP. It was just a smokescreen; an attempt to appear to have justified his pro-abortion stance. It was aimed at an imaginary foe.

Nope just an attempt to get people thinking beyond the left right dichotomy. I don't believe in a world of goodies and baddies where everything the right says is wrong and everything the left says is good or visa versa.

It means I don't have to attack straw men all day.

 

[This Charming Manc]

I can hope.

You won't get that, here.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
America is a world leader (if not the world leader) in social (i.e. socialist) services programs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social..._United_States

I see you didn't read the article you posted.

My point is that there is an over abundance of socialist programs in the United States. So much for your OP lie stating:

"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."


Quote: From the Wikipedia article posted by aCultureWarrior
As of 2011, the public social spending-to-GDP ratio in the United States was below the OECD average

So the USA lags behind most other western democracies in terms of social spending. So you posted the proof that you either are uniformed or lying which is it?

Throw more money at a problem caused by liberalism. What a grand idea TCM!


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
yet: 1.2 million babies are aborted a year.

Yet another liberal lie exposed.

No one was claiming that welfare stopped abortion, your arguing against a point now [no] one has made.

I'll repeat this line from your OP:

"...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 what you just said:

So the USA lags behind most other western democracies in terms of social spending.

A liberal caught in yet another lie.

 

[The Horn]

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 .

 

[PureX]

There will never be one single solution. It will require a holistic approach, including better sex education, better access to effective contraception, effective alternatives to phenomena of social and economic generational welfare mothers, and expanded adoption. These things will cost money and require us to accept what works instead of what we think is "right".

We could do this if we were willing to sacrifice instead of point fingers and complain.

 

[This Charming Manc]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
America is a world leader (if not the world leader) in social (i.e. socialist) services programs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social..._United_States

As said the article you links to says the opposite of that its says welfare and social spending in the US is low as a percentage of GDP.

There is not an abundance of welfare spending as you claim.

My point is that there is an over abundance of socialist programs in the United States. So much for your OP lie stating:

"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."

I was also not addressing the Obama administration I was addressing all the pro life/ no welfare states people on here. Most pro lifers on here are anti welfare, anti universal education, anti universal healthcare.

Are you saying you support welfare? Government education and universal healthcare? I doubt you do.

Throw more money at a problem caused by liberalism. What a grand idea TCM!

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
yet: 1.2 million babies are aborted a year.

Yet another liberal lie exposed.

I'll repeat this line from your OP:

"...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 what you just said:

A liberal caught in yet another lie.

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.

I think its relevant because most pro lifers here whine like babies about paying tax to support welfare, government education, or government healthcare which supports children.