No welfare means more abortions right? Would they rather have none? No welfare and no abortions mean a lot of poor hungry children on the streets right?
2007-03-01 06:02:51 · 13 answers · asked by J 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
By your logic, murder, child abuse and animal abuse shouldn't be illegal. If you're not going to support a guy, why make it illegal to murder him?
2007-03-01 06:07:53 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Because Conservatives believe in personal responsibility. Personal responsibility means taking the consequences of your actions. If you were to control yourself, then an abortion would not be necessary to do away with an unwanted pregnancy. If you were to do what was necessary to earn a living, then welfare would not be necessary. Remember, until the last 30 years or so, it was shameful to have children outside of marriage, and also to not work to support them.. Maybe the world was a better place then, in my opinion.
2007-03-01 06:13:08 · answer #2 · answered by Ben H 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I'm a Christian "conservative" and I'm all for welfare for those who truly need it. What I don't like is people abusing the system. As for abortion, there's absolutely no excuse for it whatsoever. Regarding the homeless, Jesus Christ said that there will always be those among us struggling and suffering. However, we're to do what we're able to bless them and give them a hand up.
2007-03-01 09:11:58 · answer #3 · answered by Evan S 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If we unleash the Army to shoot everyone that doesn't have a job, that would cut down on welfare, too. Yet I don't hear a lot of Conservatives advocating that position. Maybe just because you support one postion doesn't mean you can't support the other.
2007-03-01 06:08:14 · answer #4 · answered by Pythagoras 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think the biggest contradiction from liberals is their view that the parents should have choice if they want to have an abortion, yet when it comes to the death penalty they find the killing someone for doing the most heinous crimes is violating their human rights and an act against nature. It's alright to kill an innocent unborn child, yet we cannot execute the worst criminals for being a waste of human life.
2016-03-29 05:49:40 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
why should we have either? we dont need welfare but hand ups not hand outs and abortion is murder! hey dude I heard Micky Dees is hiring so is the Army, so get a job and a life will ya?
2007-03-01 07:00:55 · answer #6 · answered by paulisfree2004 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nah, there are a lot of holes in your argument... Like the waiting lists of parents who want to adopt a child. It's murder dude and even I would be willing to pay welfare to stop it and that's saying something.
2007-03-01 06:07:53 · answer #7 · answered by archangel72901 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I absolutely agree. If we provided more support to pregnant women-job security, paid maternity leave, health care, and yes, welfare,we'd have less abortions. The point is if you are against abortion, don't you need to be for more welfare for women & children. It seems conservatives are often against both.
So, if people are "irresponsible, they should have an abortion? I don't understand. I see people don't want those that can't afford another child to have sex. How would you control that? Camera in our houses/bedrooms?
2007-03-01 06:10:06 · answer #8 · answered by Middleclassandnotquiet 6 · 1⤊ 4⤋
So we should allow abortion to force poor people not to have kids so that we don't have to pay their welfare? That is your argument, correct.
2007-03-01 06:13:55 · answer #9 · answered by msi_cord 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
What it should mean is more people being RESPONSIBLE and making the choice to protect themselves from pregnancy if they are not ready to have children.
2007-03-01 06:11:00 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Oh, I see now. In fact, let's take it further. Why don't we go ahead and kill all the poor people? Then we would have utopia. Is that what you're saying?
2007-03-01 06:08:20 · answer #11 · answered by BigRichGuy 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋