Is it a riot how "Anti-Choicers" scream about abortion, but constantly whine about having to fund welfare?

Question

"Answer choosers", including myself, will ALWAYS be biased toward the top answers.

As a result, I'll kick it to voting.

Answer 1

Or childhood development funds. Or infant healthcare. Or daycare for working moms.

Respect for life, up until birth.

Answer 2

Generalize much? Not all pro-life people feel the way that you're talking about, and I'm one of them. A child didn't ask to be brought into this world, and once it's here, any responsible society should be willing to help meet its needs if the parents aren't able or willing to do so.

Of course, I feel that way about the elderly and the disabled, too. The idea of older people having to choose between food and medicine every month infuriates me, especially when we're pouring billions of dollars into a war.

So don't stereotype all of us who are pro-life, please. If my tax dollars go to support the poor, the elderly, and the disabled, that's fine with me. I just think it's a shame that we don't have a better system in place to make sure that nobody falls through the cracks.

Answer 3

Heh, great point.

NO ABORTION OR TAXES.

In reality if there weren't abortion choices, we would all be supporting a calamity. There isn't enough production in the entire US to support one year without abortion.

Piosly stating that people should take responsibility for their actions, might make one feel superior but totally ignores the reality of what would happen if abortion was abolished. That leaves the impression that teenagers would stop having sex if abortion was not an option, as if they have sex because abortion is fun. Mentally slow thinking there, NEWSFLASH teens get pregnant because sex feels good and our bodies are driven towards procreation naturally, not because abortion is an option.

Answer 4

I have been using a similar argument in abortion debate rooms for the past 12 or so years. They just don't use their heads darling, they just don't use their heads.

Mille: You are missing the point, it IS NOT coming out of their pockets, it is coming out of the taxpayers pockets. Those who seek abortions (the vast majority) are the poor and indigent. They cannot afford to pay for an abortion, much less pay to raise a child. Allowing payment for abortion is less of a burden on taxpayers than raising a child for some 21 years. Think about it.

EVERYONE: I think I made my point here, or should I say Mille did for me.

Answer 5

I do not understand how being anti-abortion is connected to funding welfare. I am anti-abortion, but I don't have a problem with funding a responsible welfare system. I fact I don't have a problem with responsible universal healthcare!

Answer 6

Because they're simply pro-birth, they forget about the next 18-21 years part after delivery or they think that the pregnant mother will suddenly come up with a magical solution on how to afford to raise a kid. And before people say adoption, it's a legally sanctioned money racket and form of human trafficking. Babies are every bit a commodity to the adoption agencies as they are to the black market. These agencies get away with bilking childless couples out of thousands,if not tens of thousands of dollars. What we really need is comprehensive sex education and better access to birth control for all women who want it regardless of income or age. Prevent unplanned pregnancies in the first place and abortions or increases in welfare rolls won't be as much of problem.

Answer 7

There are p l e n t y of contraceptive methods out there. If a person is stupid enough to have irresponsible sex without taking the consequences into consideration, why the hell we should let them have an abortion?? And if they were stupid enough to not measure the consequences, to have to pay for the raise of the child from their own pockets it's a just punishment for their irresponsability! Why do WE have to pay for their stupidity???

Answer 8

Well naturally if you are pro-life, you should be pro-life at EVERY stage of life, not just the fetal stage.

And if you want unwed, low income women or low income married women with children they are struggling to raise to keep their babies then LOGIC would dictate you vote for a government that will fund social service programmes, child welfare, foster care programmes, daycare, after school programmes etc.

So yes, it confuses me too.

Answer 9

Thank you for not using the word "pro-life", and it's definitely contradictory to say that you don't believe in either.

Answer 10

Because we are not supported by the abortion clinics.

Answer 11

That sure is hypocritical. But what is the answer? Think about what you're implying. If you can't afford a child, kill it? Does that sound even a little brutal to you?

And the hypocrisy flies both ways. Generally "Anti-Lifers" are compassionate after a child is born but will brutally murder them seconds before. Which is the worse hypocrisy?