Do you agree that more money needs to be invested in social programmes for day care, after school, finacial and parenting support as well as more funds put into the foster care and adoption system?
Or do you care for the fetus but not the child after its born?
I ask because so many people I meet who are pro-life are very much against more funding for these programmes. It's almost like they think,
"You should have kept your legs closed until marriage and if you didn't then you DESERVE to be punished with hardship."
But doesn't that attitude that Children = Hardship, only encourage MORE abortions? Isn't it counter productive?
2007-10-23 06:16:31 · 10 answers · asked by pixie_pagan 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Well, lets think about this... This argument is happening ONLY in the US btw.
So, they are pro abortion but they support the Conservatives. Last I looked, Conservativism is all about the money. They want cash and they are probably some of the biggest low-lifes in the world. They cut back on social programs everywhere they can and they are currently in a war with another country that was started based on lies where they've murdered thousands upon thousands of people.
What do you think? If the Christians were really so concerned, they'd support the social programs and NOT support the war or abortion. But it obviously isn't working that way.
If they were really so concerned, they'd be liberals.
2007-10-23 06:23:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Wow. Deep thoughts!
I would love to see more money spent on pro-life education and abstinence education. Abstinence education works better than the media would have you believe. But it isn't encouraged because the companies that make birth control pills and other contraceptives, as well as abortion providers, lose money if teens and adults aren't having sex.
I am pro-life. I think adoption should be emphasized as a wonderful alternative for pregnant teens who can't properly provide for their babies (rather than abortion). I am all for taking care of unwed mothers - God knows they need the help and it won't be coming from their deadbeat boyfriends. But I am also all for encouraging more young people to abstain until they are married and can give their children a home. Kids are a lot of work, and I wish that more teenage girls understood that. Babies aren't just cute little friends who will love them and take away their loneliness - they are dependent humans who need mom and dad to teach them how to live and how to become good people. Maybe if more young women really knew what caring for a child involved they would be more careful in their sexual choices.
And yeah, I totally agree that that attitude you described is counter-productive. I have 2 children, both under the age of 4. Even with a hubby who is our breadwinner it is sometimes hard to be a mom....but they are NOT a hardship. They are a blessing. It's sad that so many Christian couples feel that kids are a hardship and put off having them until they are "all done having their fun".
2007-10-23 06:27:14 · answer #2 · answered by Blue Eyed Christian 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
There ae some religions that are opposed to any form of contraception, and there are some that only oppose contraceptive methods that interfere with the implantation of a fertilized egg (such as the IUD, the morning-after pill, and yes, sometimes even birth control pills, which you surely know do not ALWAYS prevent ovulation). People in the second category would have no objections to barrier methods or spermicides. For the most part, these people do not believe that pregnancy itself is the sin, but that sex out of marriage and abortion both are. That is how they can be opposed to abortion and some or all forms of contraception at the same time. They think that encouraging one sin in order to prevent another is the bigger contradiction. You disagree with them, and they disagree with you. Their beliefs should be no skin off of your nose. As far as "separation of church and state" goes, surely you realize that it means the state cannot compel a person to go against their religious beliefs, or restrict the practice of those beliefs to the home. Neither can our government decree that practitioners of certain religions cannot become doctors or pharmacists, or hold elected office, unless they are willing to violate the tenets of those religions. Careful what you wish for. One day it will be your ox getting gored, as the old saying goes...
2016-05-25 03:59:17 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am pro-life and I totally agree that we need more and better social welfare programs. The USA has an extremely high abortion rate. More than 20% of pregnancies here end in abortion, which is not exactly something to be proud of whether you're pro-life or not. I was disgusted at Bush's veto of SCHIP, and I think that's going to cost the Republicans votes from pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike.
I know it's an easy stereotype to fall for, but most pro-lifers are concerned for babies--and their mothers--before AND after they're born. Crisis pregnancy centers often maintain relationships with mothers long after their babies are born and help out with diapers, formula and clothes as much as possible. No, it's not enough, but these centers are staffed by sincere pro-lifers who really want to help both mothers and children.
I meet plenty of people who consider themselves good liberals who think that teen pregnancy is worse than cancer and can only be "cured" by abortion. They may talk a good game about better social welfare programs, but when it comes to higher taxes that could pay for those programs, they suddely become quite conservative.
2007-10-24 04:37:34 · answer #4 · answered by Busymom 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You hit the nail on the head here. The real purpose of the anti abortion movement, which you have seen, is really ANTI FEMINIST. They know that the best way to keep a woman down is the old traditional "barefoot and pregnant" method. This also has the added benefit (to them) of being dependent on men. By keeping social help stifled this serves their purpose of keeping those unfortunate women in need (of them).
P.S. If they are pro-life then how can they be pro-war and pro- capital punishment?
2007-10-23 16:00:10 · answer #5 · answered by phil8656 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
show me where Christians say they do not want to fund adoption and foster care, and pregnancy help clinics- I am a Christian and I support that- however I CANNOT and NEVER WILL support abortion- because it takes the life of a child. I never said there should be hardship- that is why we support a pregnancy help clinic, so unwed mothers can be helped. Please do not put us in this category- we cannot personally care for every baby born, but we can a few at time. I am adopted and have 2 adopted kids- so please do not tell me that I do not care.
2007-10-23 06:23:33 · answer #6 · answered by AdoreHim 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Abstinence programs are not nearly as effective as christians try to say they are. Contraception is definitely the way to go. Abortion is unfortunate, but since I don't have a vagina, I don't tell women what to do with theirs.
2007-10-23 06:23:02 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋
I agree with you completely. I have so much to say on this subject, but I will refrain.
2007-10-23 06:21:31 · answer #8 · answered by Nea 5 · 5⤊ 0⤋
No.
They are generally the same people who cut funding for children's programs. Sick, isn't it?
2007-10-23 06:22:23 · answer #9 · answered by ? 5 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Generally no, they don't give a damn about them after they are born.
And that speaks VOLUMES about their ideals...
2007-10-23 06:23:17 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋