Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With the exception of Catholics, why as a rule do right wing pro-lifers oppose welfare and other social programs that benefit poor mothers? I would think that they would be promoting such social welfare programs as a way to encourage young women to carry their "child" to term. I would think that would up front in the fight for quality child care for poor and working mothers, school nutrition programs, and affordable health care, yet these same people line up behind every right wing conservative who calls for cuts in social spending.
Inquiring minds want to know.
Please do not confuse the anti abortion folks with the pro life folks. Pro life folks consider all human life sacred and do support programs and interventions for human rights. If you think you are doing God's work, and your target audience of young women are not religious, then you will support state funded programs with your taxes to meet the goal of reducing abortions. You will also support things like school lunch programs to help poor children get the education they need to break the cycle of poverty. You will also support dignity of life initiatives for the elderly, the infirmed, and those in prison. natural birth to natural death.
If there were fewer unwanted pregnancies, there would be less demand for abortions. Yet many ardent pro-lifers are almost as strongly opposed to birth control. What gives?
Here's something I've observed in discussions with activist pro-lifers...
They seem to be anti-sex, for some reason. I can only speculate, but it must somehow be tied to the biblical viewpoint that sex is dirty and shouldn't be performed for any purpose other than procreation. They have this attitude that anyone who enjoys sex should have to be burdened by supporting any children that result. A sort of payback for sexual pleasure.
I seriously doubt that they're as pro-life as they are anti-sex.
Probably because we know a church can do a better job than the government can do.
And I don't like having my tax money taken to give to a "charity" like planned parenthood.
Truth be told, we give more money to charities, per capita, than the non-religious. We like to solve society's problems by charitable organizations. Liberals tend to prefer to just pay more taxes and not get involved.
Liberals, like myself, will agree to pay higher taxes to help our fellow citizens, AND also give to charity. We do get "involved". We also do volunteer work.
Liberals tend to give less and expect more intervention from the government. They are more generous with other people's money (ie, taxes). Conservatives tend to be the opposite - less taxes and let the community/individuals/churches take care of the situation. So this is a no-win argument.
Here's something I've observed in discussions with activist pro-lifers...
They seem to be anti-sex, for some reason. I can only speculate, but it must somehow be tied to the biblical viewpoint that sex is dirty and shouldn't be performed for any purpose other than procreation. They have this attitude that anyone who enjoys sex should have to be burdened by supporting any children that result. A sort of payback for sexual pleasure.
I seriously doubt that they're as pro-life as they are anti-sex.
They hate the idea that people are having fun outside of marriage - in fact, MORE fun than in marriage. So, they don't want birth control, because they think (for some crazy reason) that if kids don't get it, they won't have sex.
With the exception of Catholics, why as a rule do right wing pro-lifers oppose welfare and other social programs that benefit poor mothers? I would think that they would be promoting such social welfare programs as a way to encourage young women to carry their "child" to term. I would think that would up front in the fight for quality child care for poor and working mothers, school nutrition programs, and affordable health care, yet these same people line up behind every right wing conservative who calls for cuts in social spending.
Inquiring minds want to know.
Because we should not sit around and wait for government to do everything for us. Why not have non profits and charity organizations take care of this? Government is inefficient in general and I would prefer my money go to private charities rather than having to be filtered through the porky hands of our govt where half of it will be lost in the red tape and govt inefficiencies.
I involve myself both personally and financially in community programs and if more people would get off their arses and do the same, there wouldn't be enough need for people to whine that big daddy government should step in with taxpayers dollars and take over everything.
A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
Here's something I've observed in discussions with activist pro-lifers...
They seem to be anti-sex, for some reason. I can only speculate, but it must somehow be tied to the biblical viewpoint that sex is dirty and shouldn't be performed for any purpose other than procreation. They have this attitude that anyone who enjoys sex should have to be burdened by supporting any children that result. A sort of payback for sexual pleasure.
I seriously doubt that they're as pro-life as they are anti-sex.
Wow! Are you really that ignorant???? Unbelievable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.