English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

How do Christian rightwingers rationalize the conflict of your pro-life, anti-crime and their anti-immigration platforms? Unwanted babies have a much greater chance of a life of crime and overpopulation of the third world countries like Mexico leads to much higher illegal and refugee immigration levels to the US.

2006-10-31 05:54:45 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

17 answers

You forgot the death penalty as well. I don't understand either...maybe it stems from the Hypocrisy written in the book they follow. It is hard not to follow in the same path as the teachings you abide by. Contradictions, hypocrisy and out and out lies permeat the Catholic/Christian Bible, so the followers will do the same. I do think that it is a nice general outline of how one should lead their life...(mostly Jesus' teachings), however to live literally by a book that has been re-written and edited by many a King and Religious leader to help them control the masses the way they see fit...is just ignorant. To answer your question. There is no rational way to understand the irrational.

2006-10-31 06:01:56 · answer #1 · answered by vargasmicus 2 · 4 4

I'm not a Christian rightwinger, and your reasoning is arguably machiavellian. Let me see if I have this straight. You're attacking the rightwing by comparing known illegal acts to theoretical ones that may not occur, is that right? I'm pro choice, but I won't get into why. The issue here is that you seem to think there's a valid comparison between persons presumed to be criminal and a fetus, viable or not.

And there's no broad anti immigration policy. That's a strawman.

It's one thing to rationalize abortion based on the physical and mental health of the mother and fetus, but to rationalize it because of some crime study, no matter how valid, is to use logic in a very cold and sick way.

2006-10-31 14:04:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

Though I am not rwing I know many. They rationalize it by supporting, through their labor, time and cash, many charities support "unwanted babies".

I think it is a stretch to blame them for immigration issues though, I do not believe there is a correlation between their pro-life(anti choice) stance and lack of federal enforcement of current immigration laws.

2006-10-31 14:09:48 · answer #3 · answered by mymadsky 6 · 0 1

The real oddity comes when you compare the damage caused by homosexuality (none that I can see) and aboartion to that caused by poverty. Poverty kills more people in this country alone than abortion and really is harmful to the very moreal fabric of this country. Why is it that the religious right continues to declare war on abortion and homosexuality while taking poverty in stride.

Oh, I know, they give to charities, participate in Room at the Inn type programs, and donate clothes to Goodwill from time to time. It isn't the same though. If the very sight of someone living in poverty sent them into spasms of rage teh way homosexuality and abortion do, then I honestly believe we could whip poverty here.

The original Christian himself preached on love and ministering to the poor unceasingly. Not a word on homosexuality or abortion (and yes the ending of unwanted pregnancy has been around for centuries). Funny how we seem to have accepted the poverty isn't it?

2006-10-31 14:03:10 · answer #4 · answered by toff 6 · 1 2

Is that like saying ,you support the troops, but not their mission,
or their Commanders, and then calling them murderers, but telling everyone, its Patriotic, and you support the Troops.?

2006-10-31 14:09:12 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

They care about unwanted american babies.

2006-10-31 16:20:41 · answer #6 · answered by cynical 6 · 0 0

Mostly because they do not like to look at the big picture.

2006-10-31 14:17:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Pro-life seems to only work when people can keep their pants on. If so much of our society wasn't so morally bankrupt, there would be no need to be pro-life or pro-choice.

2006-10-31 13:57:57 · answer #8 · answered by sethle99 5 · 5 5

Try tralking sense to people ruled by ancient superstition? Waste of time.

2006-10-31 13:58:49 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 6 4

I see your point and I in part agree.

2006-10-31 14:02:20 · answer #10 · answered by Enterrador 4 · 2 2

fedest.com, questions and answers