Shouldn't the cons who rail against welfare just pass out vouchers for free early-term abortions?

Question

If you're really "pro-life" you don't see welfare children and their single moms as the largest threat to Americor do you?

Edit:
Americor =
America or

For the record: I am against abortion; pro-choice, but really against it unless it saves the woman's life. This is just a rhetorical Q about how much cons fight against abortion, but once the child is born, they'd like it to be it's sink or swim.

Free birth control would be a viable option, but I'm sure the cons are agianst this, too, since it would encourage sexual activity. Ha! As if they need encouragement.

Answer 1

That's the funniest thing about lots of conservative pro-lifers. They are anti-abortion mostly, under any circumstances, so you figure that they be for adoption under any circumstances. Yet they also work to keep gays from getting married and adopting. And they also have spent hundreds of millions on abstinence only education that is just a collasal failure, which leads to more teen pregnancies.

Answer 2

I am against abortion and I support social welfare programs under the conditions that women do what they can to get off the programs to support them self. I belive that the government should help women like this find daycare and I also belive that the government should help them find a job or support them through a college or technical school. I am not against birth control per say, but I do not support birth control (such as the pill) that prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. I however support condoms and female condoms and other birth control that do not prevent implantation. I believe that adoption should be less expensive because if the woman does not want the child then a home should be easy to find. There are so many people in america on the waiting list and not enough american babies.

Answer 3

This question shows such a misunderstanding of the conservative philosophy that I was tempted not to try to answer but I am intrigued that somehow, someone feels that as a conservative I want to have people kill their children.

This has shown up several times recently and the thought process (presuming there is some) is stunning. I think the "logic" goes, "if you think poor people are such a terrible drain on society, shouldn't you want fewer of them? Therefore aborting children who will grow up in economically deprived households would be a logical conclusion."

I couldn't even begin to think in that fashion. Using abortion as a social engineering tool? You really don't get it do you?

The point is that abortion does kill and can't be done for convenience, etc. with any kind of a clear conscience. Being dissatisfied with a welfare system that does not do everything it can to help the recipient become a more complete and successful member of society is rational. The two positions are not incompatible and only someone who believes that life can be casually tossed away would think that.

Answer 4

"Matt W"and "open thoughts" have great points.

Your question is a bit dramatic and extreme. I've never railed against welfare...in fact when I was a kid, my mom became a single mom of four and HAD to use it. But guess what? She used it as a last resort. And it helped us out big time. When we were able to get back on our feet, we were off again.

I am against those who abuse the welfare system, period. Regardless of how many children they have or how they had them.

Before thinking in such terms, think about the purpose of welfare, and why it began. Then, while you are at work, think about aaaaall those people out there lying on the couch, watching The View, eating ho-hos and screaming at their kids on YOUR DIME.
Capable people, who are sitting on the front stoop drinking beer while you're working. Again, on YOUR DIME. There are so many abusers and career/lifetime welfare families out there, it would make you sick. Or would it?

If you think they don't exist, think AGAIN. And again. You might be OK with it, but I'm not. It's got nothing to do with the abortion issue. Not at all.

Answer 5

I would be in favor of taking the new baby away from a mother who is on welfare, and giving it to adoptive parents who wait for the opportunity to adopt for years, while welfare moms need a raise, so they spread their legs.

The reality is that most who are against welfare, are not against welfare for those who NEED it. Those who are incapable of working, disabled, etc...usually do not make people upset.

What DOES piss us off are the ABUSES of welfare, like:

those who can work, but choose not to,
those who have another child because they need more money, illegals of any kind because they should not be allowed.

We also hate the fact that the welfare system (and entitlement programs in general) are set up to keep people on the govt. nipple. They are not set up to help people help themselves. An example (absolutely true) A recent neighbor had 1 kid and between AFDC, food stamps, rental assistance, fuel assistance, WIC, etc. She was getting $1,500/month in assistance PLUS free medical. She got a part time job which would have paid her $600/month. She told her case worker, and she was told, "You do not want to do that because your benefits would drop. You would lose your housing, and much of your AFDC, your food stamps would decrease. Your decrease would be $900/month."

What would be wrong with decreasing the entitlements by say $300/month in this scenario. She would have taken that job in a heartbeat, but she could not afford to.

THAT is what pisses most of us off about welfare...abuse of the system, and ignorance of the system.



janice...those reforms were SUPPOSED to do something...but welfare is still on the rise. They were smoke and mirrors.

chris...there is a HUGE waiting list for straight people to adopt. Why would we support adoption for people who CHOOSE to be gay, when studies proove that a mother and father provide a more stable home environment for a child than do same-sex couples.

badboy...you HEARD wrong. There are still long term recipients. The Clintoon reforms did nothing.

Answer 6

No, but I have, in the past, proposed a charitable organization that offers free vasectomy/hysterectomy to the welfare people

This would preempt the problem before it can occur

Answer 7

I guess you think Bill Clinton was a conservative. He is the President who put people on welfare to work and cut welfare benefits. Yes, the republican congress passed the bill but it was his idea. One of the few good ideas he had.

Answer 8

there are some women that do that but last i heard "anyone male or female are not allowed to recieve assistance" over a year unless theyre disabled. i dont belive in abortion PERIOD! WOMEN ON WELFARE CAN CHOOSE BETWEEN KEEPING THE BABY OR ABORTIO AND THE STATE PAYS FOR IT. excuse the caps but i dont believe in genocide and thats what yoour question sounds like.

Answer 9

i think we should give out vouchers for abortion to everyone, when they turn 12

Answer 10

This is one of the most stupid statements I have ever seen on YA.