Old conservatives, yes.
However, since the religious establishment has permeated the republican party and in particular the conservative movement, this is unfortunately no longer the case. The reason for this is that hard-line religious conservatives feel that one should be morally conservative as well as fiscally conservative.
The consequence is that a conservative can no longer support what appears to be a "liberal" agenda on issues that actually illustrate the problem that made them conservatives in the first place: unbridled growth of our government through legislation.
Interesting question!
See more here:
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/042970.htm
http://atheism.about.com/od/religiousright/a/overview.htm
2007-04-11 22:22:47
·
answer #1
·
answered by p37ry 5
·
3⤊
1⤋
Judging from the judgment exceeded on the octomom, i'd say they help abortion for every body on welfare. the final public of non secular conservatives oppose abortion, homosexuals, no longer only their marriage yet their very existence, and any except the barrier or rhythm strategies of birth control. the final public of old kind Goldwater conservatives did not share those perspectives, that's a three decade lengthy obsession of the social conservatives whose base is faith. Goldwater conservatives did not help abortion, yet, in line with their conception that authorities be kept small and out of deepest lives, the did not favor to make it unlawful. Ditto contraceptives and options on both. on the on the spot gay marriage became unparalleled so that they'd no opinion on that. between the justifications there's a lot confusion about the time period conservative is that its undergone a substitute.
2016-11-23 14:05:13
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
lol in theory yes.
But conservatives generally believe in personal responsibility. if you mess up it is your mistake to fix, and killing of an innocent because you choose not to use a condom or decide your too in to your own life to raise a child is not the solution. ( I know there are more legitimate reasons than these, I am just using the personal responsibility argument)
honestly, I think your right mostly, plus the ones more likely to get abortions are liberals so they deplete their own numbers making Conservatives the dominant party hehe
2007-04-11 22:43:40
·
answer #3
·
answered by Stone K 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Ooh, I think Dean Jonathan Swift had a wee modest proposal along these lines too...
I support abortion rights, but your contention that abortion should be used as a tool to limit the population of the working class is bizarre to put it mildly.
2007-04-11 22:39:00
·
answer #4
·
answered by completelysurroundedbyimbeciles 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
Abortion lowers rates of a lot of things because it totally takes away that life. There's no way to tell what that baby could become.
2007-04-11 22:19:13
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
well,interesting question but minorities dont get abortions..if they did there wouldnt be a 70% out of wedlock birthrate for their demographic......if we could keep it to the races that commit the most violent crimes,say,or the ones who dont need any more increases in their voting base,then maybe so...but you and I know that aint gonna happen because the long term plan is to breed and swim their voting numbers so high that the more affluent,low birthrate groups wont be able to keep up......so,no to your question
2007-04-11 22:34:48
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Yes...I have been supporting this for years. Any public policy that encourages liberals and Democrats to prematurely kill their unborn offspring and keep them out of the gene pool is a good thing for America.
2007-04-11 23:28:57
·
answer #7
·
answered by dr_methanegasman 3
·
0⤊
1⤋