2007-01-03 08:31:25 · 30 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
That's a very good question. Considering the majority of the pro-life movement is due to religious interference, it would be interesting to know which is the lesser of two evils, as far as they're concerned. (talking about those pro life who ARE that way because of their religious beliefs, obviously)
Pro-lifers who believe abortion is wrong because the bible says so also believe homosexuality is wrong, because the bible says so. Yet they seldom have answers regarding what to do with all of those new, unwanted babies that would be around if abortion were criminalized. So, giving them to homosexual couples saves the babies, correct?
Except they condemn homosexuality too ....
Most pro-life are not actually pro-life, they are anti-choice. They want to remove choice from the woman, handing out sentences and condemnations while not having to deal with the consequences of their decisions. It's easy to rearrange someone else's life, I suppose, when those complications never reach your own. My guess is they wouldn't support that in the least, they'd claim they were two seperate issues, not to be confused as one, and that (wait for it) if a woman plays, she should pay by raising her child .. take responsibility for their actions.
Forgetting that contraceptives ARE taking responsibility, and they fail. Forgetting that it took two to start that pregnancy. Forgetting all the facts and relying on emotion, propaganda and guilt trips.
*sigh*
2007-01-03 08:38:02 · answer #1 · answered by Jaded 5 · 4⤊ 3⤋
No, because as a pro-lifer I believe there shouldn't be "unwanted" pregnancies in the first place, regardless of what type of person adopts the "unwanted" baby.
I support young men and women having an ounce of self control and either having sex after marriage or if they have no sexual self control, at least using condoms or other fertilization protection.
We shouldn't be having a debate over who gets which babies, because if all babies were "wanted", like nature intended, the need for adoption would be minimal, and limited to children past the age of reason.
2007-01-03 10:48:46 · answer #2 · answered by STILL standing 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't really agree with abortion, and I would rather see a baby raised in any loving family rather than being carted out with yesterday's used needles from the corner clinic any day. There are too many unwanted and abandoned children to be picky about who takes care of them. Loving parents are loving parents no matter how you look at it. If you can support your children (adopted or not) then there's no reason you shouldn't have them.
2007-01-03 08:46:32 · answer #3 · answered by Mystery Lady H 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A true pro-lifer would support any responsible person willing to adopt a would-be aborted baby.
2007-01-03 08:36:32 · answer #4 · answered by Hemingway 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I don't understand why there would be a connection to a pro lifer caring if any gay people wanted to adopt a child. I could careless who adopts a child as long as they give it a good loving home.
I don't know I am pro-life, I don't have a problem admitting it. Am I going to push that on anyone? Nope, will you see me holding a sign at a clinic? Nope, and am I overly religious.. Nope..
So all the stigma's above are truly a shame, because this pro-lifer isn't that way.
2007-01-03 08:33:33 · answer #5 · answered by Issym 5 · 4⤊ 3⤋
I"m prochoice, but my step mother is prolife. And yes, she thinks gay people should be allowed to adopt. She actually worked previously in the foster care system. Right now, the young babies are going to go to traditional couples with a mother and father. It's just the system now. However, gay parents provide welcome homes to older children who may not be as "attractive" to those families seeking young babies.
My step mom is also a democrat (as am I), and a catholic. I used to want to want to judge prolifers, until I realized I hated that being done to me.
2007-01-03 21:28:50 · answer #6 · answered by avalonlee 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know about most, but I do. I think children deserve a loving home, regardless of whether that's a single or same parent home. I don't see that it matters so much, especially when the alternative is years in the foster system being traded off like a race horse. And I don't think we should really consider them unwanted, somebody wanted them enough to give them life, to know that they were better off with someone else...they just weren't planned for.
2007-01-03 08:35:32 · answer #7 · answered by Seg 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I don't think that's a generality you could make either way. Pro-lifers that happen to be against homosexuallity may or may not, but if you're talking about pro-lifers that accept homosexuality, then I'm sure they would support it.
2007-01-03 08:33:47 · answer #8 · answered by Lowa 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I heartily support adoption, especially adoption to a married couple... but would consider any loving couple. Anything is better than abortion. Abortion is evil.
2007-01-03 08:43:38 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Here come the "a child needs a mom and a dad" comments, like 18 years in an orphanage would be better than a damn gay couple as parents.
2007-01-03 08:34:16 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 3⤋