Why is it that the pro-life party is is against any social spending?

Question

If you are against social spending (education,welfare,universal health care, public transportation,etc;)...then whats the value of that life?
For an example:
If a young, single, poor woman becomes pregnant does she have the baby and has to rely on social services (welfare,wic, food stamps) to raise the child? Does she risk the stigma of being known as a welfare queen......because she was pro-life?

If she aborts to save her self and society the costs (financially,emotionally,legally) ...Does she risk the stigma of being known as a "baby killer" ?

Please answer intelligently this dilemma that many young women face.

When someone shines a spotlight into a group’s dark side it arouses, almost without fail, righteous indignation along with virulent, “kill-the-messenger” attacks. That is also why it is so utterly frustrating to have any meaningful, rational discussion or collaboration with such people; you can never quite reach the real person. Instead you are stonewalled; you keep getting programmed, predictable, group-speak responses and jargon designed to abort any real scrutiny of the group’s always secretive dark side.

Answer 1

They're also Pro Death penalty. Pro War and Anti-Environment.

For the Pro Coathanger crowd, the "Right to Life" ends at the moment of Birth. The two things that COULD cut down on abortions, sex education and easy access to birth control, are things they adamantly oppose. It certainly shouldn't surprise anyone that the US first rise in teen pregnancies in 14 years comes after Republicans started funding "Abstinence Only" Sex Education programs.

To the Pro-Coathanger way of thinking, it's sinful to have potential humans aborted, or not conceived--when it's so much fun to make them suffer.

Answer 2

Wow, did you spend real money to learn words like that? That's a whole lot of psycho babel.

I think the unmarried, lazy, prego will be more scrutinized for her lack of judgment, character, and ill-morals.

If someone chooses to side with lust and unbridled passion outside of responsibility, that doesn't entitle them to a free meal ticket to raise an illegitimate child on tax payers money.

Taxes are intended to build infrastructure NOT social structure and engineering. That's the job of the church and family.

Answer 3

Because they are only pro-life if it costs them nothing. Once you approach their wallets, they start stuttering about "personal responsibility."

Ask one why healthcare, child immunizations, homelessness, hunger, poverty, etc. are not pro-life issues and see what happens.

And the "you should use birth control" crowd should ask why then did Bush spent a billion dollars on abstinence only education. Kind of defeats the birth control thing to not tell anyone about it.

Answer 4

It's simple. If you can't afford to have kids, use some form of birth control. If you end up pregnant, then you have a responsibility to provide for the life that's been brought into the world. There's no reason why the rest of us should have to pay for someone else's irresponsibility.

Answer 5

I think you have a lame excuse to justify abortion. A woman's right to abort or have a baby should not be paid for by me. If they want the ability to have control over their body then they need to have the financial responsibility for it too. The woman needs to take the responsibility in the beginning, either stop spreading them, or get fixed, or take the responsibility.

Answer 6

With birth control so cheap and obtainable nearly everywhere, why is there so many unwanted pregnancies? Is it that people are just too lazy to use them?

Answer 7

because they are not at all pro life, they are only pro birth.

Answer 8

Social Darwinism. They want people to suffer consequences for their mistakes and position in life.
It lets them feel superior.

Answer 9

They need someone to flip those burgers

(seriously think about it)

Answer 10

Perhaps if she is young, single, and poor, she shouldn't get pregnant in the first place.