100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Question About Pro-Life Stance for the Republicans | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
@Jrbogie Once again, I'll throw it out there that I'm just trying to understand the aspects of this issue. No one on here actually knows my own stance on the subject as I have not posted it. If you wish to call me a Nazi, at least take a minute to gain an idea of my actual opinion instead of what you assume from what is a learning experience for me.  i never called you a nazi or anything else. i never personally attack a poster. my comments were directed at what you posted. i'd never assume to know your thinking and never suggested that the thinking i commented on was yours. in fact i associated that line of thinking with hitler. you say your in this for a learning experience that's great. now you've learned how i feel about selective abortion to purify a species from whatever disease happens to be in the minds of those in power. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.  This is the same argument the social darwinists made in the early 20th century. you realize that they were able to enact legislation in over 30 states in which a judge would decide whether or not someone should be sterilized based on their mental and physical abilities. abortion mills were opened in the hopes that the undesirable classes would slowly disappear. all of this led to the rise of the eugenics policy instituted by the National SOCIALIST German Workers Party. the modern progressives have been able to turn their policy of eradicating the undesirables into a more friendly "family planning" or "women's reproductive healthcare".. the names have changed, but the motives certainly haven't.. for anyone that doubts this I suggest you read a book entitled "The Bell Curve". Written by progressive/social darwinists.. Not in 1920 but in 1994.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. Reproduction is a personal freedom...It should not be decided by government or clergy...If a woman wants to reproduce, she will and, I guarantee you, if she doesn't she will find a way to end the pregnancy....Laws won't change this fact... If society forces a woman to reproduce, then society is obligated to support the child...Opponents of abortion must be willing to put their money where their mouth is... Whose choice, the mother's or governments? The mother's or religious leaders? ... Want to reduce abortions?...A good place to start would be to reform adoption laws....Many who want to adopt can't because of too many government regs...Should race be a barrier to adoption?...Should same sex couples have to jump through more hoops? Why can't kids be raised successfully in single parent homes?...Non traditional couples make great parents too...Pro choice all the way.... abortion and adoption arent quite the same issue though reducing abortions starts with changing the way we teach and view the seriousness of the choice to have sex with other people,,,, but, that is probably not gonna happen because actually MAKING the baby is not anything anyone wants to be restricted from, its just the potential consequences they want taken care of by others,,, In the context of the OP, abortion and adoption can be linked together as burden of expense was brought up...And now, as you point out, making the baby is not something people want to be restricted from...Because of this, I think it would make sense to come up with better ways of dealing with the babies once they arrive, better for the babies and better for the taxpayer...Concentration on reducing or restricting abortions is not going to work..I don't think government has any right to get involved in my sex life... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 agree with this... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. Reproduction is a personal freedom...It should not be decided by government or clergy...If a woman wants to reproduce, she will and, I guarantee you, if she doesn't she will find a way to end the pregnancy....Laws won't change this fact... If society forces a woman to reproduce, then society is obligated to support the child...Opponents of abortion must be willing to put their money where their mouth is... Whose choice, the mother's or governments? The mother's or religious leaders? ... Want to reduce abortions?...A good place to start would be to reform adoption laws....Many who want to adopt can't because of too many government regs...Should race be a barrier to adoption?...Should same sex couples have to jump through more hoops? Why can't kids be raised successfully in single parent homes?...Non traditional couples make great parents too...Pro choice all the way.... abortion and adoption arent quite the same issue though reducing abortions starts with changing the way we teach and view the seriousness of the choice to have sex with other people,,,, but, that is probably not gonna happen because actually MAKING the baby is not anything anyone wants to be restricted from, its just the potential consequences they want taken care of by others,,, In the context of the OP, abortion and adoption can be linked together as burden of expense was brought up...And now, as you point out, making the baby is not something people want to be restricted from...Because of this, I think it would make sense to come up with better ways of dealing with the babies once they arrive, better for the babies and better for the taxpayer...Concentration on reducing or restricting abortions is not going to work..I don't think government has any right to get involved in my sex life... by the same token, making adoption easier isnt going to do much to reduce abortions, as I doubt many who are having abortions are doing so because of how difficult it will be for their child to find a home and probably more do so out of fear that their child will be 'given' away to unfit environments,,,, |
|
|
|
|
