spending the money necessary for the social programs needed to care for the children who are born? Doesn't "life" continue after birth??? And isn't it hypocritical to say you are pro-life but not want to spend a dime on these children once they are born?
2007-02-01 14:15:09 · 13 answers · asked by puter_patty 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I knew if I waited awhile some of the people posting to this question would be the "verification" behind my question. I didn't say every pro-life advocate is against funding social programs. But the answers to this question would indicate those "pro-fetus" folks are alive and well.
2007-02-01 14:37:12 · update #1
And I'm not talking about being able to afford to donate to a cause. I'm talking about supporting legislation that ensures the social programs necessary to see these children succeed in life.
2007-02-01 14:40:02 · update #2
It's weird how "pro-life conservatives" and "pro-choice liberals" work.
With the conservatives, they would kill to see that baby live (abortion bombings), but when the child is born to a crack-addicted mother and a father in prison, they don't care. Then, when the kid joins a gang and shoots someone, they want
to kill him.
On the other side are the liberals. They're all for killing the kid when he's in the womb, but once he gets out, he's untouchable.
If the mother is killed while she's pregnant, the baby doesn't count as a victim. But you can't kill the murderer, oh no. That would be a violation of his Civil Rights.
I just can't understand these peoples logic.
I'm pro-choice, because many people are going to abort their (child or fetus, you choose) one way or another, and I don't want to see women mess themselves up with "back-alley" and "coat-hanger" abortions (mainly, self induced abortion and abortions performed by non-physicians).
2007-02-01 14:50:20 · answer #1 · answered by Richardson '08 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just my opinion and I could be wrong ... But ...
Are not most of the pro-lifers relitively poor folk? They are surely not the upper class and wealthy.
If true, the not-so-wealthy folk cannot afford to help those truely in need as much as we would like. Thus, we need to support a cause as best we can! Even without funds to guide them.
I am "Pro-Life" but lack funds to aid those who need it most! But, I will stand behind them, in front of them and with then till my dying breath!
Human life is not something to be taken lightly! It is a blessing in most cases to live as a human being. To honor our God, our country, our people!
Not everyone has the funds available to support our cause! We do however have the spunk, the gonads! And we will stand with our brothers and sisters until time's end!
The Ol' Sasquatch Ã
2007-02-01 22:34:26 · answer #2 · answered by Ol' Sasquatch 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
These same people have opposed prenatal care for poor women, which has caused the deaths of millions of unborn children due to miscarraiges as well. They are equal opportunity hypocrites about the application of their compassion. If they we really pro-life, they would not be selective in this way about the relevant issues, but rather, would support all parts of the pro-life story.
2007-02-01 22:23:47 · answer #3 · answered by michaelsan 6 · 5⤊ 2⤋
You nailed it ! I could never understand either why it was so important to protect the life of the fetus but once it becomes a child the "pro lifers" no longer care about the well being or welfare of the child. (Sorry about the use of the word welfare, didn't mean to rile any short tempered neocons.)
2007-02-01 22:26:45 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
What is the source for this information? I don't know a single pro-life person who is against funding programs that are needed for children after they are born.
2007-02-01 22:19:34 · answer #5 · answered by Firestorm 6 · 2⤊ 4⤋
They're also pro-responsibility advocates. In other words, if you can't figure out how NOT to get pregnant, or if you can't take care of a baby if you DO get pregnant, then keep your legs closed. You're too stupid to be having sex.
Either that, or they're all for adoption. And just because they think a child has the right NOT to be murdered, it doesn't then extend to being obligated to take care of a child that is not their own after it's born.
I see no inconsistencies at all. Nor are there any inconsistencies with the death penalty argument. A baby is innocent. A criminal chooses his or her destiny and thus accepts the consequences.
2007-02-01 22:26:05 · answer #6 · answered by I hate friggin' crybabies 5 · 0⤊ 7⤋
Um, before that statement is made....what is your example? I mean before you start to question a group, you should have at least ONE fact as to hold an argument to...
But yes, if your example does indeed have merit, then you could say it would be hypocritical to proclaim pro-life, while disregarding it while living...
Support your thesis more please...
Social Programs? Which ones don't they support? That'd help a little...
2007-02-01 22:19:21 · answer #7 · answered by cardsbb47 2 · 1⤊ 5⤋
Yes
2007-02-01 22:18:21 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
What children's programs are we against? What programs aren't we spending a dime on? What are you talking about? Unless you can back up those statements, you are the hypocrite.
Edit: You still didn't answer MY questions which qualifies you as a troll
2007-02-01 22:19:49 · answer #9 · answered by kathy_is_a_nurse 7 · 2⤊ 6⤋
why would they do that? it's not good for them. is it?
same with the death penalty. If you can claim it as religious and moral, do so, despite what the religion accually says.
2007-02-01 22:18:33 · answer #10 · answered by The Big Box 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋