I realize I am far more inteligent than most Liberals who use Y!A (no offense intended) so I understand if this question will not be understood. But try to follow the logic...
Liberals always say it is better for a Child to be aborted than for a Child to grow up poor. Aren't the Liberals electing for less children from 'poor' families?
Liberal logic: There will be less poor minorities having children thus less poor minorities. That is one way to readicate poverty!
2007-02-20 03:56:17 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Hey look, Chuckles the guy who only cares about one topic is back. His anti abortion stance blinds him from caring about any other issue in this country.
Who cares if GWB lied? Liberals believe in abortion. Who cares about global warming? Liberals believe in abortion. Real ID Act? Liberals believe in abortion. 90 year grandmothers have no health insurance? Liberals believe in abortion.
Get a grip Chuckles.
2007-02-20 04:03:30 · answer #1 · answered by noxturnxonxred 2 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Your argument is irrational. Conservatives are primarily (though not exclusively) rich and white. Liberals (who usually support socialism - something the rich never ever support) count many of the poor and minorities in their ranks. Why would those who support abortion want to bring about eugenics to wipe out those who are more likely to support abortion? You completely misunderstand (or misrepresent) those who are in favour of it. They are not only taking into consideration the potential child's welfare but also the welfare of the family it would be born into. If the family cannot support it because they simply do not have enough money the child will live a miserable life with the parents and would likely be considered a burden rather than a blessing.
You take completely the wrong attitude in your criticism of abortion. Equally I could say that because the conservatives do not support it they are promoting wage slavery - the bondage to big business and low wages that poor families often end up in (They are born into a deprived neighbourhood, get a poor education because their school is terrible, have no qualifications and so are forced to work for a low wage - a perpetual situation). By having more poor children the conservatives increase the workforce that are prepared to work for a pittance in their businesses. Of course, that is not necessarily true - but it's easy to make surmises.
2007-02-20 04:07:53 · answer #2 · answered by Mordent 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think most people support "eugenics" to some degree - many people think that parents should have the opportunity to terminate a pregnancy if they discover that their baby has a serious and incurable medical condition. This is a kind of eugenics ("eugenics lite", I suppose),and though it is premised on individual choice, it is undergirded by a kind of socially agreed agenda about the lives of the seriously disabled. People like Peter Singer take this much further, of course, though most of us probably wouldn't go as far as he does. "Eugenics" has become a dirty word, but I'm not entirely sure that it should be.
2016-05-23 22:47:08 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. It's a freedom issue. Your question is like saying people who support gun ownership support eugenics because guns kill people and kill more poor people than rich people. Understand?
You're clearly not far more "inteligent" than most Liberals who use Y!A who at least know how to spell the word "intelligent" so it's no shock you misstate and misrepresent "liberal logic." Your question's basis is untrue and unfair. Many wealth and right wing people get abortions. GW Bush paid for an abortion. So did many other right wingers who then call it baby killing.
Your assumptions are all wrong. It's like saying right wingers want to kill and prevent working and poor people from getting born because right wingers support the policies that keep sending our jobs out of the country and sending mainly poor troops to get killed in a pointless war. Also right wingers want to kill poor and working people because right wingers oppose programs and policies that help people get jobs and assistance so they can feed, house and cloth their families, get a good education, etc.
This seems to be your "logic" the right wingers want to kill as many poor and working people by starvation, lack of housing, AND by encouraging abortions and if possible illegal dangerous abortions so you can kill the poor woman who wants an abortion while the rich women can get a safe abortion from an expensive doctor or even go out of the country to get one which used to happen when abortion was illegal and unsafe.
2007-02-20 04:10:39 · answer #4 · answered by Mike H 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The matter isn't whether a child grows up poor more than a woman having the RIGHT to decide for herself. Who are you to determine whether a person shouldn't have the right to decide, and since when did anyone's personal opinions stop you from having the same right? So your "intelligent" understanding of eugenics should decide for them? It's hilarious that you would proclaim yourself to be more intelligent than those who use Y!A, yet you use it yourself and have no understanding of the "spell checking" feature.
2007-02-20 04:10:02 · answer #5 · answered by mixedup 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Hi, I am a liberal and I have never said its better to abort a child than to have it grow up poor. I say its up to the woman to control her own body. If she is poor and wants to have a child that is her right. If she feels she needs an abortion, that, too is her right. Its not your business. Nor mine. Thanks for your question. Have a nice day.
2007-02-20 04:00:45 · answer #6 · answered by jxt299 7 · 7⤊ 0⤋
eugenics is different than abortion. with abortion you choose- and yes for some people its better to be aborted than to live.
better than spending the first 10 days of your life going through withdrawl because you're mom was an addict
better than going hungry because you can't afford food
better than being with parents who will neglect or abuse you because they never wanted you in the first place.
ect
eugenics preaches forced* abortions, forced* sterilizing, forced* euthenasia.
liberals preach choice and a woman's right.
if you are poor, drug addicted, or otherwise seemingly unable to care for a child and still want one- go ahead.
and we'll even help you with welfare
Because its your choice!
2007-02-20 04:18:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's an interesting angle you bring up with Eugenics, but I think the rhetoric is more often "it's better for a child be unborn than to be unwanted."
Do you think rich people don't avail themselves of legal abortion?
I think your argument is extremist and unfounded, but interesting.
ps I think he meant eradicate
2007-02-20 04:01:36 · answer #8 · answered by the beet 4 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Quite right.
Minorities are aborted in disproportionate numbers, yet liberals are especially concerned with aborting more of them. This is in spite of the fact that minorities also have disproportionately negative feelings about abortion.
As Susan B. Anthony said, "[abortion] is practiced by those whose inmost souls revolt from the dreadful deed."
How about trying to create a society where people don't end up thinking that abortion is their only choice?
2007-02-20 04:14:39 · answer #9 · answered by The First Dragon 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Liberals don't believe that actually. Liberals don't want the government telling people what they can do with thier own bodies. It has nothing to do with rich or poor.
2007-02-20 04:08:56 · answer #10 · answered by Louis G 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋