If you are pro-life on abortion but do not support the need for programs feeding the poor, do you lose credibility?

Asked by: rruthbj
  • To An Extent

    I was pro-life but I've considered the issue of bodily autonomy. I will be pro-life again if we have the technology to save the baby outside of the womb with equal or less invasive methods compared to abortion.

    Ultimately, life is a good value and if you are going to promote it you should support policies to keep people alive. But there are legitimate reasons for opposition to these programs. People abuse the system. The entire system needs to be revamped.
    1. Require volunteer hours in order to get welfare
    2. Everything is paid for with a card redeemable only for approved items in approved amounts.
    3. The government may buy a person a cheap place to live and it will automatically look for the cheapest possible places.

    Welfare should be to keep people alive and enable them to get out of their situation and back to the workplace. It shouldn't be fun or comfortable. If welfare is not enjoyable people will only use it as a last resort.

  • Yes, People are Starving in America but Pro Life Advocates do not Stand up for them

    If you are Pro Life, that means you should be Pro Life, Pro Healthcare, Pro social programs. But most of the Pro Life people I know only "protect" fetuses. If you want to bring more people into the world, you should be concerned about how they will live their lives. Will they have healthcare, enough to eat, or a roof over their head? If you save a life, that life is yours to protect forever. Are Pro Life Groups willing roll up your sleeves and help the real babies are the result of your no abortion stance? A lot of real live breathing viable children, sick, and elderly people need your help. What in your mind is the difference between fetuses and the people they become? A lot of people in America need your support. But I don't see many of you trying to help the live ones.

  • YES, no question about it!

    If you support a "life" that may or may not even be there, but after you force the woman to have the baby you do nothing to support them, I definitely think you lose credibility. As George Carlin said on the topic, "If you're pre-born, you're fine, if you're pre-schooled, you're *screwed!*" (to replace a not-so-nice word.)

  • What is Pro Life and how is it different from "Pro Choice" anyway?

    Abortion which is medically beneficial for the mother's survival is acceptable to me. It is a matter of choice that couples and even the medical professionals will have to deal with when a life threatening issue arises. That being said, Pro Choice can be considered Pro Life as well in that sense.

    Additionally, an impoverished couple might have to resolve to drastic measures to limit the size of the type of family they wish to have. Having more children will only mean a bigger financial resource to support the family's ever growing needs. Unfortunately, not too many opportunities exist out there and the couple will have to carry on the burden of living a life with a relatively scarce resources which will not be enough to procure their needs including quality education and the chance for a decent life. Their choice now will affect their lives in the future.

    That being said, what is Pro Life and what is Pro Choice?

    With regard to the question , I believe that the desperate economic times of today have caused people to be distorted. Whether abortion is costly and that feeding programs for the poor is an additional expense paid for by tax payers and that both are a waste of tax payer's money, I believe that people should look into themselves and decide what is generally good for the community not only for today but tomorrow as well.

    Giving a helping hand to the less privileged and providing them a shot to success can make more people more productive in the future.

  • Medicate, why not vaccinate?

    If you are pro life the question is simply when life begins. Often times people answer this with conception, which is arguable but a different subject. In any case, after a certain point an abortion can be performed under certain criteria. This of coarse upsets pro life supporters in the argument that it is a human life that you are killing and that therefore is wrong, especially in the innocence of a child.

    Now you take that same child and fast forward 10 years into the future. The child needs support as her parents cannot support her. The government gives her parents tax breaks, welfare etc, in order to help provide for the basic needs of the child. At this point most people would still agree to help the child's parents with the general statement we all hear "I have kids" as if it were some sort of special qualification.

    Again fast forward into the same child's adolescence. Due to poor education, inadequate parenting (parents lack education and money), and unable to obtain funding for contraception, the same child that side stepped an abortion now needs one herself.

    In conclusion being pro life should be just that, pro life. Take a little dignity in humanity in all shapes, forms and ages, not just the beginning aspect of life. Perhaps if we all had a little support throughout life no one would ever need something like an abortion. Don't simply fight the symptom.

  • Good idea! Let's hold children responsible for their parents' mistakes!

    What pro-lifers can't seem to understand is that by forcing a woman to have a baby she doesn't want, you are making a child responsible for his/her parent's mistakes. To make matters even worse, these same pro-lifers vote for candidates who strip social programs that feed, educate and house these children. I'm all for people being held accountable for their actions, but we can't make children pay for their parent's stupidity.

    Also, you'd think these same pro-lifers would support sex ed in schools and sexual health clinics, totally reasonable ways to stem unwanted pregnancies, but, surprise, they don't. They vote for candidates who don't support these programs.

    Finally, I cannot wrap my brain around how some Americans feel they have the right to make another American's choices for them. What is even more hypocritical is the majority of these "pro-lifers" are all about the government staying out of Americans' personal lives. UNLESS, of course, any American wants to make a choice about abortion. In that case, they want to use religion and personal opinion to legislate against choice. Okay. Cool story.

  • Absolutely, the two go hand in hand

    When the majority of women having abortions are below the poverty level the two issues go hand in hand. How is a woman to be forced to care for a child knowing that she will not be able to afford the basic needs? These "pro-choice" people should start focusing their energy on helping the poor, instead of helping keep people poor. Statistical abortion rates go up when stricter laws are in place. The Netherlands is very very liberal, with the lowest abortion rate. These people are ruining American.

  • I think so.

    In the words of Sister Joan Chittister, who makes an excellent point: 'I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born, but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth.'

    In the cases where people need abortions, Pro-life people don't consider their reasons, be it from rape, the pregnant person being in danger, incest, or even because a mistake happened. There might be financial issues, the parent might only be fourteen or so, or maybe they won't want their kid to grow up resented.

    But sometimes, people need help. Not everyone has the resources, money, or so, to raise a baby, and that's why abortion is their option, and don't say 'but adoption!1' Adoption doesn't always mean a happy life for a baby (e.G if they're not white and able-bodied, they're less likely to be adopted and rot in the system.)

    I do think Pro-Lifers lose credibility if they don't think those programs should be around to help families and others who need assistance just because 'it's not their problem.'

  • Hypocrisy speaks very loud and shows your true colors

    If you oppose abortion for the reason that it's murder (in which you use this term to demonstrate your care) Why would you opposed HELPING A BABY EAT BE CLOTHED AND SLEEP IN A SAFE PLACE?

    You "Pro Lifers" like to use the term "right to life."

    So shouldn't babies deserve their right to the quality of life? To live doesn't mean you're alive.

  • Two totally different things.

    Abortion is murder. It is as simple as that, the fetus is capable of becoming a baby, and has a heartbeat. It is barbaric to tear it out just because you were not careful. Just because you ruined your life, doesn't mean you should fix it by murdering your child.

    Supporting programs to help out people who are lazy is different. What motive are we giving people to get a job to become something useful to society by giving them everything they need to survive while they are not doing anything? There is a fine line between murder, and handouts.

  • Life is earned, not given

    The pro-lifers believe that as the fetus is unable to protect itself, we should legislate their morality to govern everyone. Although there are people who are truly in need, I don't believe the government should pay for programs for a couple reasons. Taxes are meant to benefit everyone or the vast majority (90+%) of people. For example, roads affect 99.99% of our lives, ports and airports. Schools (excluding university and technical programs) are another fantastic example.

    Government programs (not just feeding the poor) go to 30%of Americans. Some claim that it is selfish to have wealth and to a certain extent it is. However, I have no right to dictate how you should spend your money, so why should you legislate how to spend mine? If you feel that badly about poverty in America, go volunteer at a homeless shelter. They need people and money.

    Instead of saying you can't do anything, do something and encourage others to help each other. When many people do a little, it adds up. Finally, welfare fraudsters and abusers are an issue to consider. 1.9% of governmental welfare claims go to fraudulent claims, with a 20% loss overall (this figure was deduced from California's social services website) in California's Medi-Cal system. It is hard to find government statistics about governmental loss due to fraud, but between 3%-10%( of the money in Medicare is lost due to fraud. The other programs have no specific percentages I could find, but I would venture to say they are the same. Ten percent is quite a bit, especially when that money could be going elsewhere that might benefit the majority of people in this county.

  • No, absolutely not!

    It's absurd to think that "because you don't agree with killing an unborn child, that now you're responsible to pay for and support this child...That so many want to snuff out because it's just not convenient/planned for; 'we're lazy and can't be held to the same standards as everyone else.'" You all realize that scenario is really no different than saying "since I can't financially support my 8-yr old, I am opting to end his/her life. Oh, you don't agree that I should have the right to do that? Then you have to pay for my poor decisions - over, and over, and over again" Ridiculous.

    Just because one doesn't agree with murder does not mean that society can take on the burden of all these innocent babies that are usually born to poor, single-mothers and mostly non-existent fathers. Society is taking responsibility away from those that it belongs to (so there's no incentive to make better decisions, or consequences for bad decisions), and placing it on everyone else. I cannot even believe that this is an argument that the "pro-you don't have to take responsibility for your actions" supporters chant - especially with a straight face.

    This is not about women who fall victim to rape, incest, or sexual abuse at a young age. These circumstances make up such a small number of the population that is having abortions - and they are SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES that should have SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS. This is also not about people who actually need help and that social programs were originally implemented for (i.E. The physically and mentally disabled, the elderly, the ill, etc. - but not the lazy). Unfortunately, abortion is now such a household name that it's as 'normal' as having a yearly exam.

    You cannot take able-bodied and able-minded people and EXEMPT them from the requirements of civilization - including work, behavioral standards, personal responsibility (getting pregnant or making someone pregnant, etc.) without dire consequences to society at large! How can people not realize what these services (running amuck) are doing to our country?? They are making us weak, dependent, and entitled.

    We cannot expect people to develop as healthy, self-sufficient human beings if they do not have to face and conquer all the challenges that life brings (including unplanned pregnancies). Let's encourage people to do better, to make better decisions, to learn from their mistakes, and to take responsibly for their actions.

  • Government doesn't have to provide social services...

    ...when you have private food kitchens, thrift shops, and charities. Additionally, conservatives donate more money on average than liberals, progressives, or socialists - why is this? Because we think that it is the job of a responsible populace, not the government, to provide needed social programs. Unlike liberals, we aren't going to steal other people's money and then take personal credit for whatever it is used on.

    Posted by: TN05

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.