Why do people who claim to be pro-life generally:
Support the death penalty?
Support the war in Iraq?
Oppose life-saving stem cell research?
Protect life until it is out of the womb?
Own ridiculous amounts of firearms?
That's not very pro-life if you ask me.
2006-12-12 19:30:47 · 19 answers · asked by SatanicYoda 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Can you idiots READ? I said GENERALLY SPEAKING. This obviously does not apply to ALL pro-lifers!
Man, you people are f-ing stupid.
2006-12-15 05:26:37 · update #1
I absolutely agree. They are inconsistent and define "the worth of a life" on a very narrow spectrum - it is all about who THEY think should live.
So i am completely suspicious of their words and actions.
oh you forgot to mention murder of doctors who chose to perform LEGAL abortions and bombing abortion clinics.
2006-12-12 23:39:10 · answer #1 · answered by goddess 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Well, here's how I look at it.
With abortion, one is killing the most innocent party in the situation. The baby has yet to do anything wrong other than exist.
I supported the War in Iraq because I believ e that it was the right thing to do. Saddam Hussein broke 14 UN Resolutions in regards to weapons. He was also murdering Shiites and Kurds. He could not be in power.
I don't oppose stem cell research. I oppose government supported stem cell research. Government can only be a hindrance when it comes to science. Now I do want to mention that we have no proof that Stem Cells will successfully cure anything. Embryonic Stem Cells have not been successful in curing anything, in humans or mice.
Protecting life until it is out of the womb? I am sorry but this is an ignorant statement. Let me remind you that Conservatives and Religious people are 30% more likely to donate to Charities. See we just don't believe that it should be a Government Mandate to redistribute wealth. We give straight from our pockets. We don't believe that Government should be an intermediary.
Guns are used for protection, hunting, hobbies (collecting). We believe that Government if unchecked by the people will run rampant, an armed citizenry will help prevent that. The greatest instances of genocide to occur in the 20th happened in countries which instituted Gun control. Guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are no danger to other law-abiding citizens. Not to mention that owning guns is a Constitutional Right.
I must respectfully pose one question to you:
What is more hypocritical? To support the killing of a baby, who has done nothing wrong, while opposing killing a murderer. Or the opposite?
2006-12-13 04:29:39 · answer #2 · answered by Jon M 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Death penalty is basically "an eye for an eye." Isn't it the states right to have the death penalty or not. I didn't think the death penalty had anything to do with pro-life... that just the voters have the chance to choose the laws.
What does the war have to do with pro-life. The pro life thing is the abortion gig.
They don't oppose stem cell research... personally I just don't want my tax dollars going for embryonic stem cell research that hasn't had anything good come from it. Cord blood and adult stem cells have had numerous successes in the medical research field. Embryonic has had none so far, and no one in the private sector wants to fund it because there is nothing good from it. So why should the gov't fund it.
What does the fourth thing have to do with anything. Like China used to be... wait till it's born and see what it is then kill it?
What does owning firearms have to do with both ends of the abortion controversy? What is your definition of ridiculous amount? Don't I have the right in America to keep and bear arms... isn't that my choice.
That's not very pro-choice of you, if you ask me....
2006-12-13 03:44:13 · answer #3 · answered by pro_steering_wheel_holder 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Funny how people talk but nothing but crap comes out.
The difference between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells is that adult stem cells can not be trained for other uses, they can only reproduce for what they were.
And the Supreme court has not determined when life begins so it's not a baby until the third trimester.
and life is life - perhaps if some of those death row people had been aborted then their victims would still be alive? If they passed a law saying that instead of abortion, the fetus would be placed in the womb of a right to lifer, you would see them backtrack awful fast.
"I don't want you to have an abortion but I don't want the kid either."
religion is against abortion because of numbers. the more kids christians have, the more christians there are.
2006-12-13 03:58:51 · answer #4 · answered by al p 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Posts like this show ignorance.
There is a huge difference between protecting the life of an innocent baby, then protecting the life of a serial killer.
As for the war, I don't support it.
I do not oppose life saving stem cell research as long as the stem cells are obtained in a way other then by abortion.
All life should be valued and protected. People should start by valuing there own lives, meaning if you value your life don't go out and do something that would end you up on death row possibly facing the death penalty.
I do not own a firearm.
As for the above poster, bombing abortion clinics and doctors make me sick. I think anyone who does something like that is sick.
Although I will add, I am pro-life. Its my choice. Will I push my choice on you? Absolutely not. If you ask my advice or post in a public forum to were I can respond then yes I will. But I also believe it is not my place to judge or make any ones choices for them. So I guess it comes down to personal preference. I don't have to agree with what some women do with there bodies but I am also not going to judge anyone for it because who am I to judge.
So as you see not all pro-life people are the way you say they are..
2006-12-13 03:40:56 · answer #5 · answered by Issym 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
I'm pro choice but I understand the rationale pro-life folks have for opposing abortion. I think it's fine they think that way. I don't know, this sounds like lumping pro-lifers into the same boat. It may not be the case.
2006-12-13 04:27:49 · answer #6 · answered by iwasnotanazipolka 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Eye for an eye, the war is a correct move originally supported by both parties, no reliable studies that says EMBRYONIC stem cell research is better than adult stem cell research, protect life before and after birth, it is a Constitutional right to own firearms. The party of tolerance once again not being tolerant.
2006-12-13 03:37:19 · answer #7 · answered by lotstodo 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Let's face it. Pro Life is a short hand political label. Period. Most do support the death penalty. Big deal. It is a separate issue.
You are using the same tactic they do in discrediting the pro choice crowd. You are attacking their character rather their ideas. Saying such things says more about the speaker than anyone else. When you attack my character, morals, or ethics, you are revealing your own poor character.
BTW. I am pro-choice & ambiguous about the death penalty.
2006-12-13 03:53:06 · answer #8 · answered by bob h 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Not when they are asked to step up and adopt unwanted babies.
The way I look at abortion is that it is humane. Destroying growing cells before they become human is much more decent than killing someone who has been alive and aware. I don't understand why pro-lifers just don't see this obvious truth.
I am willing to bet that it has something to do with the soul which is absolutely intangible. How do you base an entire viewpoint on the intangible? Oh, I forgot about religion!
2006-12-13 03:39:08 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
that is your opinion. I am pro life , I do not own a weapon , but do support the death penalty,because those people convicted of a crime , were able to make that choice. A innocent baby in a mother's womb has no choice.
2006-12-13 03:37:18 · answer #10 · answered by srstephens 4 · 1⤊ 4⤋