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

You can't have it both ways!!!

If most of these abortions didn't happen who would pay to take care of them??

2007-02-19 07:37:47 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

Personal responsibility is the only thing that is going to stop abortion.
And that includes MALE responsiblity!!!

2007-02-19 07:39:39 · update #1

23 answers

The fact is, if we were to do away with abortion, we will need to VASTLY increase our funding of social service programs, and many people do not seem to grasp that. At bare minimum, we would need to greatly increase the number of judges, clerks, social workers, etc associated with family court who would need to handle the adoptions. Besides that, there is space in maternity wards, in schools, etc to accomodate the approx million new people which would result. I certainly hope those who are so hot to end abortion are also hot for the new expenditures on social service programs which would absolutely result.

I wish we would treat those children already born and unwanted with the concern and fervor so many show for the unborn. Being born is only the beginning of the battle-it's all hard work from there.

2007-02-19 07:46:56 · answer #1 · answered by melouofs 7 · 3 2

Just another example of how extreme conservatives are all about ideals, instead of what's realistic. I think we can all agree it would be great if there were no unplanned pregnancies, if all children in this world were welcomed into loving homes with responsible, prepared, healthy parents, and everyone always had a job that provided them with all the necessary benefits and enough pay to support them and their families. However, those of us who know that the world is not a fairy tale and that the world is never going to be so perfect are able to see how things like abortion and welfare are sometimes necessary if we're going to continue to have a society that is humanitarian and works for people of ALL faiths or lack thereof.

2007-02-19 07:50:51 · answer #2 · answered by M L 4 · 3 0

If the kinfolk would not pay, then the youngster will starve, so i'm uncertain what the question is. In situations like those, the youngster could be taken away. mothers and fathers can go away toddlers at hospitals and fire homes with none penalty below the regulation. it relatively is seen a secure and criminal circulate of parental rights.

2016-10-02 09:57:51 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

The objections to abortion and welfare are based on 2 completely different principles.

The objection to abortion is that it is murder. Murder is defined as the taking of innocent human life, which babies are. It does not matter if a human is 5 minutes old, 6 weeks old, or 21 years old, it is still human. DNA proves this beyond any shadow of doubt. The government's job is to protect it's citizens, therefore abortion is a matter for the government.

The objection to welfare is that it is unconstitutional. This means that it is illegal for the government to administer welfare programs. Nobody objects to helping the needy, only the method. We must help our fellow citizens, but it must be done through the states, individuals, and private businesses, as it is stated in the Constitution.

To simplify it for the liberals in the audience:
Murder is bad, age is irrelevant, science proves it.
Helping people is good, but not through a federal program.

2007-02-19 08:00:13 · answer #4 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 0 3

Because there is not contradiction. It is an issue of personal responsibility.

The majority of abortions are not performed on poor women. The majority of abortions are performed on middle class women. There are charities who take care of the children, and there is the orphanage system. My wife and I cannot have children.

The only thing I am happy about is the fact that pro baby killers have less babies than anti baby killers, ergo, in the future anti-baby killers will outnumber pro baby killers.

There is no contradiction between the welfare state and the existence of abortion. The problem a lot of people have with abortion is the concept that it is a constitutional right. Nowhere does the constitution ever say it is your right to have an abortion.

2007-02-19 07:44:09 · answer #5 · answered by lundstroms2004 6 · 2 4

Because they're ideologically indoctrinated. It's the set of beliefs that their ideological sources want them to have...

They say abortion is against the Bible, and leave out the fact that the Bible clearly states that life begins with birth at the first breath.

They claim that Jesus was a conservative... which basically ignores the man that Jesus was. They claim he would have been against Socialism, but selectively choose their passages and misinterpret them.

I'd say they're hypocrites, and sometimes that's true, but I don't think that enough of them are actually choosing their own belief systems. Like puppets, it's the person pulling the strings who's the real problem.

2007-02-19 07:46:35 · answer #6 · answered by leftist1234 3 · 2 2

I fail to see how abortion is a male issue. If the woman has sex with the guy, then how is she not to blame? And don't cite rape. How many pregnancies are a result of rape?

Anyway, by your logic, welfare is not in support of personal responsibility. Nor is abortion. So are you for or against personal responsibility?

2007-02-19 07:45:13 · answer #7 · answered by spewing_originality 3 · 1 2

Not against abortion, but definitely against welfare as it is currently implemented. I have *no* problem giving someone a hand up, but I resent the hell out of forced hand *outs*.

And I agree - personal responsibility needs to come back into fashion. And we should tattoo DEADBEAT DAD on the face of any loser who refuses to accept responsibility for his children.

2007-02-19 07:43:37 · answer #8 · answered by Jadis 6 · 5 1

First, I agree with your statement about personal responsibility for both partners, female and male. But by making that statement, you automatically move to the anti-abortion side, whether intentional or not. Abortion is all about the lack of personal responsibility, both before and after the pregnancy. A responsible person would accept the outcome of their actions and would not choose to kill a baby in order to escape the responsibility of raising the child they chose to conceive. They would also not expect the taxpayer to pay for their carelessness.

2007-02-19 07:46:07 · answer #9 · answered by boonietech 5 · 2 3

People need to take care of themselves. I am against abortion and against welfare for extended periods of time. I am okay with a year or two for people who have really fallen on hard times, but these people who get on welfare and stay on it while having more kids for years piss me off! It is not our responsibility to care for people who are poor. They need to stop having kids if they can't afford them. And if you don't want to have kids, then have protected sex, or better yet, abstain. Have you ever seen how they do abortions? It would make you sick to your stomach! So, it is not that complicated to understand how people can be against both. We don't want innocent babies to be murdered and we don't want to give all the money that we work hard for to people who want to be lazy and have more children to get more money. So, you can have it both ways!

2007-02-19 07:47:27 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2 3

fedest.com, questions and answers