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.
"I'm not extremely 'pro-life,' but I believe that if an unborn child is developed to the point that it can survive outside of the womb, then it has inherited natural rights and should be considered a citizen of this country."
This is the sort of moral relativism that was in play in pre-war Germany.
Where then, do we draw the line? Should children not count as 'people' until they are born? Or then, should be life be counted at the moment of conception? There are drastic consequences on either side of the argument. If life begins at birth, then there is no reason to block any form of abortion, and the murder of a pregnant woman could not possibly be a double-homicide. On the other hand, if life begins at conception, then the embryo should be given full natural rights as defined by Locke. If that's the case, then any form of abortion is inherently murder (including the morning after pill), even cases where the birth of the child will kill the mother. Further more, if we include predestination into the mix (as in divine providence), then birth control would fall under the category of negligent homicide.
I'll be honest, I tend to waiver on the issue of abortion. It's a very complicated issue. The absolutist in me has a hard time accepting definitions of life provided by man (and thus considers all abortion to be murder), but the realist in me says that practicality demands some sort of standard, because what may be an obvious moral truth to me is obviously incorrect to somebody else. At the end of the day, we can't color these issues in a black and white framework of 'good guys' vs. 'bad guys.' Sometimes, to make things work, we have to go about the business of our lives through moral tangents.
Also, it's a bad practice to go about demonstrating your points by simply posting links to various articles. If I could get away with that in college, my economics papers would simply consist of links to articles by Friedman, Sowell, Rand, etc.
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.
I don't know where you're getting your information from, but those of us who are "pro-life", and evangelical Christians, have been supporting poor families and unwed mothers for years, through church organizations, and through supporting outside private organizations with donations.
The Church in general, has been doing this kind of work since Biblical times, as Paul wrote in Galatians:
"For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. James, Peter, and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the Jews. All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do." Gal 2:8-10
Protestant Churches have run soup kitchens, food banks, homes for unwed mothers, homeless shelters, and many other welfare organizations since the Pilgrims came over on the Mayflower.
One of the churches that my family attended for several years here even sent church members to Hatti to do needed repairs and maintenance at a hospital. They would make trips the Hatti two time per year to do this work, staying for a week each time. Members were usually giving up one week of their vacation from their regular jobs to do this work.
What most Americans are opposed to is the "redistribution of wealth" type welfare programs run by the Government. This isn't voluntary giving; it is theft, and it's wrong. More money is wasted in the bureaucracy than ever reaches the intended beneficiary.
If the government would steal less, their would be more available for charitable giving, something that Americans have always done, and very generously.
Would you mind sharing where you got your information, or is this just your silly uninformed notion?
And, why the, "with the exception of Catholics", caveat? I assume then that you are Catholic?
Where then, do we draw the line? Should children not count as 'people' until they are born? Or then, should be life be counted at the moment of conception? There are drastic consequences on either side of the argument. If life begins at birth, then there is no reason to block any form of abortion, and the murder of a pregnant woman could not possibly be a double-homicide. On the other hand, if life begins at conception, then the embryo should be given full natural rights as defined by Locke. If that's the case, then any form of abortion is inherently murder (including the morning after pill), even cases where the birth of the child will kill the mother. Further more, if we include predestination into the mix (as in divine providence), then birth control would fall under the category of negligent homicide.
I'll be honest, I tend to waiver on the issue of abortion. It's a very complicated issue. The absolutist in me has a hard time accepting definitions of life provided by man (and thus considers all abortion to be murder), but the realist in me says that practicality demands some sort of standard, because what may be an obvious moral truth to me is obviously incorrect to somebody else. At the end of the day, we can't color these issues in a black and white framework of 'good guys' vs. 'bad guys.' Sometimes, to make things work, we have to go about the business of our lives through moral tangents.
Also, it's a bad practice to go about demonstrating your points by simply posting links to various articles. If I could get away with that in college, my economics papers would simply consist of links to articles by Friedman, Sowell, Rand, etc.
Where do we draw the line? That's easy. At the begining of life; conception.
People forget, or have never been taught (but I was taught it in 7th grade biology) that at the very instant of conception, everything about a person is determined, from hair color, eye color, intelligence, height, build, personallity. In other words, the "person" that will be, exists from that very moment. If there is a "magical moment", that is it. Conception. The rest of the time the fetus spends in the womb is simply development and growth. The person already exists.
Absolutely not. I actually grew up presbyterian and studied the bible for 3 years. I'm tired of people who call themselves christians, yet criticize and hate those who do not share their beliefs. If "christians" were as sacred as they pretend to be, we would not have the problems in the world that exist. Jesus gave his life for all sins, yet those that seem to think they are privelaged are the ones committing them. They only hide behind the bible when it is convenient.
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.
It's called charity. Most churches have charities. Most pro-lifers belong to churches with charities that help the poor.
The best thing that Bill Clinton did in his entire presidency was sign off on welfare reform that got people off the welfare rolls and back to working again.
If you can name one program the federal government manages effectively and efficiently and isn't rife with bureaucratic red tape, fraud and abuse, I'd like to hear about it. The churches do a better job of getting things to people in need and they always have.
Absolutely not. I actually grew up presbyterian and studied the bible for 3 years. I'm tired of people who call themselves christians, yet criticize and hate those who do not share their beliefs. If "christians" were as sacred as they pretend to be, we would not have the problems in the world that exist. Jesus gave his life for all sins, yet those that seem to think they are privelaged are the ones committing them. They only hide behind the bible when it is convenient.
Sorry, but everything you write evidences deep hostility and anger toward Christians.
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.
Why do you think the only way to help the poor is through government?
Yeah, no tax money for any of that IMMORAL stuff, like helping innocent kids get decent meals or health care or housing. Just moral stuff like public golf courses and tennis courts, improved first-class lounges at the airport, and light rail out to the country-club suburbs.
I don't know about Victoria but here you have to pay to use those "public golf courses and tennis courts". Not all of the tennis courts but some of them. You have to pay to ride light rail too, what makes you think it is free? First-class lounges at the airport is an airline thing not a taxpayer thing, pay the price and you can sit in there too.
I fed and housed my children and furnished health care insurance, is it to much to ask others to do the same?
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.
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.
