If a strict Pro-Life policy was put in place and women in the U.S. were banned from getting abortions, where would that put the United States in the future? Since the Pro-Life stance seems to be mostly a Republican based theme, wouldn't it be a little conflicting to the other Republican supported idea of cutting into/eliminating welfare programs?

I mean, if it was truly and utterly pro-life, then that means that women that had genetic physical or psychological disabilities wouldn't be able to abort and that would increase the number of children born with those disabilities in the long-term. And if those children grew up and were unable to function in society and were unable to get care from families for one reason or another, they would be reliant on welfare programs and need more taxpayer dollars to support them.

I'm just curious.

Im not republican, but i think perhaps ADULTS would take more responsibility for their choices before they laid down together if that were the case.

I think adults (male and female) who produced children would be held legally responsible right away by means of direct withdrawals from their income

I Think other things would change in order to adjust to a place where people actually had to take care of the lives they created,,,,

As in if the mother were disabled, the father would take responsibility?

what is wrong with a disabled parents child?

Murder is murder,,,but our conceptions of alive differ as to where it really is formed,,,so we fight that,,
We have death penalties for killers and THATS not a BIG FIGHT?
Personally,,I feel that ANY and ALL groupes who are pro-life,,should invest in the means and ways to raise every child they stop from being able to be aborted,,at ALL COSTS TO THEM,,
Because,,trully I feel its more a REASON for them,,than a REAL ACT of sarifice into their TRUTHS of ACTIONS..
To me,,THATS ONLY RIGHT,,and its JUST...and THEN,,THAT would save millions of babies each year...
But the monies paid out in lawyers and advertising to SHOW AMERICA,
would be SAVED to RAISE THE CHILDREN...
And I'm a realist here and a Christian,,
IF MY WIFE (which I don't have one,,but did) Had to lose our baby,,or her life,,I would KEEP,,my wife,,,and THAT CHOICE SHOULD ONLY BE MADE BY THOSE PARENTS,,,and thats just one place of concern I have.
Making LAWS,,that for all the right reasons make,,all the right best sense when glaning at them,,,BUT,,To LIVE THEM OUT,,,can be beyond life and mentally damaging many unforseen subjects,,and all their likelihoods to then do or cause?
We would lose MANY MORE LIVES IF ABORTIONS WERE OUT-LAWED COMPLETLY.
And to me,,THAT makes no sense for THAT loss of life either?
ANY loss of taking a life is wrong,,yet,,many Christians can agree to some being justified and some not? WHY? I wonder that is?
In order to STOP abortions children ALL need to know how NOT to become pregnant,,And PARENTS NOT hide that from them and have THEM make a mistake to them,,and a baby to the World..
Those who wish to stop that totally,,WOULD THEY WISH TO HAVE THEIR CHILDREN FIXED AT BIRTH TO NEVER HAVE THE ABILITIES TO GIVE LIFE THROUGH THEM?
Well,,THATS the concept in many female minds as to stop abortions
SO,,WE NEED TO CHANGE THEIR WAYS OF THOUGHTS,,HUH?
Education and maybe new drugs that have to be taken in front of their parents that stops them from being able to produce?
I don't have answers,,as to how to fix issues of this moral standard
of being and life,,,BUT,,I KNOW SO FAR WE SUCK AT DOING IT RIGHT!!!

Nothing, the question I was asking was on how the situation would be handled if a parent with a genetic disease passed down their disease to their child through inheritance.

I'm trying to understand how the responsibility factor for that kind of situation would be handled and distributed.

I am registered as Republican and I think that in order to receive welfare you'd HAVE to be unable to become/or make somebody pregnant while receiving assistance. If they can't afford the kids they have (if they have any), they certainly can't afford more. That would put an end to all the 'baby factories' in business just to get more 'free money'. BTW, I'm also 110% for random drug testing to receive assistance.

@Gearhead,

What would we be doing with the people who can't take care of themselves due to health problems?

keep them from moving so they dont sustain any more injuries they cant pay for?......<sarcasm>

I'm not trying to butt heads with you this time Msharmony, though I did enjoy our last debate, it was quite awesome.

On this subject I'm really just trying to understand all points of the matter better as this is a topic I'm not well informed about.

Well, those are the kinds of people who were INTENDED to receive assistance and they should be. It's the people that CAN work and COULD support themselves, but would rather let everybody support them who need weeded out. Who here can name at least one person who's on welfare, but has brand new flat screen TV's, a new car and top-of-the-line everything? Or who collects welfare because of 'minor' health issues that are VERY exaggerated? Then of course, there's always the ones who work under the table making decent money and are also collecting... I know I can probably name dozens who CAN be working, but would rather live it up on the "government's tab".

nor am I I was offering what I consider similar logic to the suggestion that assistance clients be denied the ability to create more children that they 'cant take care of'

along that logic, I Thought maybe we should keep injured and disabled people from moving about, so they wont suffer more injuries they cant afford,,,,



in all seriousness though, my real passion is about BALANCE in place of absolutes when necessary

in the case of those who honestly 'cant' look after themself, I would think a medical decision would be required to make the determination and in that case contraceptive measures also prescribed,,, instead of abortion after the fact

Thanks for clearing that up, I didn't quite understand.

can't happen. roe v wade, you see.

I'm not really for it(abortion)only in certain circumstances,but keeping it legal atleast women who do have it can do it in a safer legal enviroment instead of taking matters into their own hands even though some do atleast there still is a safer way by having clinics.Also it's their bodies(women) not mine.

Welfare should be used to help those who can't work, not for those who don't want to work. There are simple changes that could be made to the existing welfare system to improve the system, cut costs and incentivize recipients to look for jobs.



I am really not sure what you are talking about here. I guess you are assuming that the parent's conditions would be passed down to the children. That's not necessarily true.



What "genetic physical or psychological disabilities" are we talking about here?

Not all who are pro-life are Republican. I am not a Republican and I am not pro-life for religious reasons. I am pro-life because babies are human beings with the right to live. I agree that abortion solves a lot of societal problems quickly and easily. But, so would any form of execution.

I am also not opposed to social welfare programs. I am all for them. We would have plenty of money for social welfare programs if we just cut out the waste and fraud in these programs.

Roe v Wade could easily be overturned. It's one of the worst legal rulings on the books. It's an obvious example of legislation from the bench.

it's always, "legislating from the bench" when a ruling goes against you. many in america see it as equal justice. but of course what you and i think of the ruling is moot. fact is it hasn't been overturned even with predominantly concervative justices in the majority. wondering how if it's so easily overturned it's lasted these decades?