Are you Pro-life?

Question

No rhetoric please. I really want to understand:
IF you are against abortion being legal... then why do you (most of you, a few are excluded here) NOT support enlarging the Welfare funding to make sure all these homeless and uneducated young people (who are often unwanted and end up as criminals) have a home and money to live on.
You wanted them born, so why can they not just do as they please and not work, or drift, of commit crimes. You wanted them to be born into a dysfunctional family system, frequently without one or both parents around, often in foster homes and orphanages, and ultimately in jails and prisons.
You have no problem paying extra money for more cops to protect you from them, and more prisons to hold them, and you're ready and willing to send ministers into the prison to save their souls.
So - WHY do you demand that they be here? WHY do you have so much concern for forcing them to be born, and then so little concern for them after they get here?

Before anyone tries to educate me on the "reality" of adoption - I work in a sector of the community where I deal with a lot of these people daily. They are generally poor, undereducated (good thing they're smart enough to cook your burgers at BK or Micky D's, Huh?). They frequently have criminal records, truancy problems, drug problems and alcohol problems. AND, they generally start having more kids at about 14 or 15, so we have immature crack head mothers trying to raise babies when they can't even spell the medicine on their babie's
prescription.
Foster care is a joke, 3/4 of the kids in it are abused or neglected by their foster parents, and the kids with real problems NEVER get adopted, they live in orphanages until they're old enough to move out or run away. And the cycle starts all over.

Ok people, insult me if you like, but that's avoiding the point. I AM NOT talking about young couples who are struggling, or divorced expectant mothers. I am talking about 14 and 15 year old CHILDREN having babies, and the babies grandmother (it's typically the grandmother I see helping out) is 28 or 30 years old. This is not rhetoric - this is real life in lower middle class America. I see them EVERY day in my job. I am not proposing killing all poor people's babies, read my question more closely.
At any rate, the poor people in this country are often harder working and more generous than the upper middle class. Don't care if you don't like it, but we ran a foster child xmas gift operation in our store-front office this past month, and you know what? 80% of the money came from people who earn less than 200 bucks a week, the people who were in the 500 - 900 a week range gave almost nothing (NOTHING), the rest of the money came from people who were in the 1500+ a week salary range.

I am only saying that it is not fair to try and force a young child to have a baby she can't raise or educate or care for properly, and then NOT support programs that would insure the kid's future success. And yes, being born in a ghetto does pretty much guarrantee youre' growing up on the wrong side of society. 1 out of 10 making it and NOT becoming losers does not prove to me that they all had the chance to be the best they could. You know, one hero in a group of losers, does NOT make a group of heroes.

Answer 1

I am pro-choice.

Answer 2

So sad, all this hopelessness of yours....
Anyway, in answer to your direct question, emotional meltdowns aside, I am unapologetically pro-life....the only other position is pro-death. Sorry, but there is no such thing as pro-choice if our rights are endowed (by the creator, or the more pc notion of "natural law"), rather than granted. That's where the flaw in your logic lies, friend. And why there's so much existential angst surrounding such an uncomplicated issue - "am I worthy of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness/property?" If your rights are in fact endowed (ungiven and unextricable by any man's whim), then worthiness becomes a non-issue, those rights being part of your very being.

So, to steal a famous phrase, check your premise....one cannot approach a problem from it's smallness, as you suggest - no one loves "them", no one will feed "them", we will all be doomed if we let "them" come into existence/live outside our concept of productivity/live past 80/etc, etc, etc.... We have to grow the problem, and look at it in it's fullness, to see what's truly at stake. Who is "them", and why do I see it as someone else's responsibility to care for
them"? "Them" is US! We are all responsible for one another - from beginning to end, not convenient to inconvenient.

1) abortion is unconstitutional - it is a violation of the most basic understanding of human rights, and the notion that it is protected under the 1st ammendment is legally incorrect and morally wrong....that is why it has it's own ammendment - isn't that redundant? You don't need a separate ammendment for something already covered in another ammendment.
If a child can be murdered in it's mothers womb, at it's mothers behest, where is the line when I/you become less convenient for society? Can my/your mother rub me out then, too?
2) biology dictates that life begins at conception - a sticky little subject socialists set aside because it trumps their blood thirsty quest for a eugenic State. How can a baby be aborted in the eighth month of pregnancy and it's called "choice", and yet a person can be charged with murder if they kill a pregnant woman whose baby dies as a result of the criminal act?
Legally, a child is protected in the womb IF IT'S CUTE AND WHITE....when was the last time LaTonya in the Bronx was the murdered pregnant mom of the week, whose child was being anxiously awaited by her family?
So the paradigm of the created needy being helped by the need creators continues...
Interestingly enough, the liberal notion of "help" is to eliminate people who don't know they have a choice when it comes down to voting - how has a welfare state helped anything?
Charity - true giving of one's resources, be it religious or secular, money, time, or otherwise, is the only way large societal problems have been solved. The government getting in the way of a person's liberty by offering pathetic insulting handouts is destructive (just look at the last 50 years of the growing poverty in the US - this is your welfare state at work). There is no other word for that than GROSS!

3) Abortion is an acceptable form of slavery.
It is imperative to the pro-death movement that unborn children not be recognized as people. Babies must be dehumanized in order to subjugate them....remember, Jews are rats, Blacks are monkeys, babies are parasitic blobs of cells...sound familiar? Abortion is state-sanctioned bigotry, plain and simple.

In the end, if natural law is the guide of the land, selfishness should prevail, anyway - what we have lost by forfeit of all the knowledge, brainpower, goodness, HOPEFULNESS of those we have dubbed expendable. Have we bypassed the cure for cancer, understanding of the universe or the ocean, or an interpretation of a manuscript that no one as yet can decipher? The problems you pose are highly solvable....as a Christian, it is clear to me that the enemy looms close and large, ready to steal any glimmer of hope we may harbour. As a Christian American, I know better....again, unapologetically, I choose life.

Answer 3

You clearly have your mind made up already and this isn't a question, but I'll humor you.

I am pro-life. However, like most people who consider themselves pro-life, I can rationalize abortion for cases like incest, rape, or (of course) health of the mother.

"So - WHY do you demand that they be here? WHY do you have so much concern for forcing them to be born, and then so little concern for them after they get here?"

This is really a gross misrepresentation. It shows your bias. And one thing: the phrase "forcing them to be born" is pretty ill-conceived. You make it sound as if the child doesn't want to be born and is being forced, unwillingly, into existence. This is, at the very least, a poor choice of wording.

I had a son at 19. I was a sophomore in college and working several jobs and could barely support him, but abortion was not an option. He came into the world poor and with a teenage mother. Would you suggest that he would have been better off never living at all? Because that, frankly, is scary. He is a happy, healthy little person with a full life.

I feel VERY comfortable talking about abortion because I know exactly what it feels like to be young, poor, pregnant and scared.

I have also had the immense honor of knowing two pro-life friends who have adopted children-- one is a single woman in her 40s who adopted a baby named Janey. Janey was born addicted to crack. She is almost six now and is very healthy and happy.

The other is a friend named Molly, who, along with her husband, adopted a sibling set of four. (Four! All at once!)

There are many, many, many good human beings in this country and in this world who are quietly taking on the responsibility for needy children. I am immensely happy with my decision to raise my son instead of having an abortion. And I'm proud to know people who are protecting life and childhood at every step of the way.

There are many good reasons why people oppose abortion. "Forcing people into existence with no concern for them after they get here" is a gross misrepresentation of the pro-life position, just as "wanting to kill babies" is a gross misrepresentation of the pro-choice position.

Try to actually see it through someone else's eyes, instead of ascribing faulty reasoning and evil motives to all pro-lifers.

Answer 4

It is easy to tell you are right. When one is right, all the nuts come out and defend with senseless arguments. It is a fact---Yes a fact-- that 100 million kids will NOT be adopted. And it is a FACT that 10 million will die due to lack of medical care. And the pro lifers simply let them die. They care not for the child, they only care about how they "feel" about themselves. And they feel good when they "save" a fetus and let a child die. It is a FACT that each time a fetus is "saved" it causes the death of 12 loved and wanted kids that are already alive. And adoption is no answer unless one of these pro lifers wants to adopt 100 million kids.
The reason you struck a nerve with these people is because even they doubt what they do. They have no moral reason to be pro life, the Bible does not support them and God himself is the bigest abortion doctor around. At least the pro lifers have enough sense to "feel" they are wrong even if they don't have enough reasoning ability to "know" they are wrong.

Answer 5

Americans have murdered roughly 45 million babies since Roe v Wade. What makes any of their lives less valuable than yours? Sure, some of those children would have grown uo in impoverished homes, but some of them would have grown up to be outstandnig human beings. Abortion is a moral stain on our society.

Answer 6

Apparently you don't want to understand. This just seems like a rant.

I'm a single father. The mother wanted to abort. And it's her legal right to abort since fathers have jack rights in this country. Thankfully, she agreed to still have the baby and give him to me (with some compensation for her time and effort) - full custody, no child support, no responsibility. And that's why I'm pro life. Until fathers have some kind of say as to what happens to their offspring, we're just at the mercy of women's whims.

I'm sure you're not going to like my reasoning, but it's personal for me.

EDIT: I'm sure you see a whole heck of a lot. But go look up Dr. Ben Carson. He's the product of the society you're working with. Thank God his mother didn't think like you do, that it would have been better to abort than to raise him.

http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/car1bio-1

EDIT: So since not enough make it, let's make sure none of them do? It almost seems like you're promoting some sort of eugenics of these people. Like since they're poor and uneducated, they don't have the right to have children. Scary.

Answer 7

The homeless and poor should receive some help, but they are that way as a result of the choices THEY made. The dead babies were given no choice.
If you are arguing that we should kill the homeless and poor, we'll have to stop the discussion now so you can seek mental help immediately.

Answer 8

Personally, yes. Politically, no.

(I have to admit that, after your "no rhetoric" comment, I disregarded your own rhetoric and jsut answered the question that had been asked.)

Answer 9

Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You can't just be killing children b/c you anticipate them growing up to be criminals. Can you tell the future? There are plenty of people who have made something of themselves growing up in a dysfunctional family.

Answer 10

The Constitution calls for LIFE LIBERTY...and the PERSUIT of happiness.....that one is NOT a garuntee..ya got to support yourself....or in the parents case...they made ya..they gotta work to support ya for 18 yrs....just like I do my kids

Answer 11

Pro-life means you give someone at least a chance to succeed or fail.

I'm with American...and you ARE A FLAWED REASONER!!

You don't realize how much a fool you look right now.