Are you actually pro-life?

Legal reform. Specifically reform geared towards ending execution as a punishment. If everyone has the right to live their life from its natural beginning at conception to its natural end with death, and nobody has the right to deprive another of that right, then how is it consistent to deem capital punishment okay?

My approach is harsh, but one life can only equal another. A person may not use his or her life to rob another of theirs. Each life is sacred, we treat it as such or we die.

In complete honesty I'm on the fence about this one. My biggest problem comes from the fact that there's often still a chance for recovery.

Perhaps, or clinging onto that chance may cause you more pain when the reality suggesting otherwise sets in. There are times when letting go is the most merciful and less painful thing you can do for yourself.

Democratic peace theory - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia Diplomacy really does act to prevent war in many cases.

In reality, or in my opinion at least, violence has solved more issues that diplomacy alone. Diplomacy is nothing more than the proverbial can being kicked down the road... even if you kick it a hundred miles down the road when you're walking, you'll still have to kick it again when you get that far down the road, if that is what you're intent to do. That, or you can just pick it up and find the nearest recycling bin and do the environment a favor! I just don't place much value on talking. For example, the Iran nuclear deal is a prime example of what "talking" can do. Talking can lead to travesties like that, it can do more harm than good and endanger our key allies. Issues like that can be settled more easily by the end of a blade rather than the tip of a pen or a man's tongue.

My dad has a saying for people who are all talk who refuse to back it up with anything substantial:

"Battleship mouth, rowboat ass."

People shouldn't have to be, no, but that's what we have right now: a little over five out of every hundred people in this country relying on a government check just to help get them through the month. I'm not saying it should remain that way indefinitely, but I am saying that becoming independent takes time and people have to eat.

Let's put it this way. Government assistance shouldn't be temporary, right? So, then, it should be cut off after a certain period. Other people who, just like them, are struggling to get by simply by pouring what little they earn into the pockets of other poor individuals. I see that as counterproductive. Circular. I mean yes, there are people who will never be able to make it financially by themselves, and exceptions are a given. But for other people who are taking advantage of this system, continuously taking money off the backs other hard working people, and of the aforementioned poor person, there should be a definite, mandatory time limit on how long they can receive assistance. I have no mercy on people who steal...yes, steal from other taxpayers to fund their own laziness.

Even if we do manage to drop unemployment levels, we're still going to need a strong safety net for the inevitable falls and all the people who will never be able to support themselves, such as the elderly and severely disabled.

No arguing there.

Anti-poverty as in supportive of measures to reduce the breadth and severity of poverty in society.
Poverty, like inequality can never be truly eliminated. Fighting it can be costly, and in some cases damaging. Look at our debt. A great bit of it has been accrued by trying to bring people out of poverty. We have spent over 80 years fighting it, and we have just as many people (as far as I know) in poverty then than when the "War on Poverty" was enacted.

But surely you understand why we can't just subsidize people out of poverty, right?


Raising taxes, especially corporate and on the highest earning brackets, to pay for all of this.

Question: If it isn't right to raise taxes on the poor, what makes it right to raise them on the rich? Why do they deserve to be penalized for being prosperous? Are we not forcing them to give? Forcing generosity by the iron hands of the government? Instead, let there be a flat tax that applies to all tax brackets except the absolute most poorest income earners.

Because it's worth the risk considering the place they fled.
Is the risk worth being branded a criminal? We have a process, and that process needs to be respected. I know full well that the United States can grant refugee status. Yet still they insist on violating our borders and adversely affecting our economy by taking advantages of loopholes sewn in what is supposed to be absolute immigration law.

Living on the run here is better than living there and spending every day wondering when the cartels will force your children to smuggle drugs for them and every night wondering if a hit squad will target your house while you sleep.


Either way, aren't they still running? To me, as a figurative illegal immigrant, it wouldn't equate to noticeable change in lifestyle. Running is running, if not from drug gangs or government agents. It makes little difference.

Racism affects your quality of life if you're white. It's often a deciding factor in your personal safety if not. Think about how many deaths you wouldn't have heard about this year if non-white people could walk around in public without the risk of being murdered in cold blood by the exact same people they're paying to protect them?

No it doesn't. Cops are doing a service to this country. Another question: How many deaths this year could have been prevented, black or white, if cops were simply allowed to do their jobs without being painted this way? I'm pretty certain the murder rate in Baltimore and Chicago would testify as to what happens when cops are shamed into passivity for simply trying to effect the law. I can't abide by such a... inane argument, if you will.

These types of arguments only breed animus, they don't make the quality of life better for anyone. In fact, it worsens it, greatly. The people we pay to protect us aren't able to do the things we pay them to do... protect us. Somehow you are too busy berating them instead. What good are you to a cop when you don't appreciate the job he does to protect you and your fellow citizens? Why should he waste his time protecting someone who thinks poorly of what he does and what he is sworn to do? There are bad apples of course, but it is rather childish to brand him and everyone else who does the same duties diligently that way.

Another thing: It is quite ironic when a person hates on a cop for supposedly being racist, for targeting a black person arbitrarily, yet when they are wronged by the law by someone else, the first people they call for are those who enforce the law. Police. Those police, who are supposedly are launching some sort of racially motivated genocidal campaign against the African American race. The person forgets the statistics that say blacks kill more blacks than white cops do. It's only bad when cops do it. There's never a good reason for it, is there?

We are a more equal society than we were last century. The color of your skin matters somewhat less in general.

However, this flies in the face of the argument I just addressed, which was racism. How do you reconcile the contradictions made here? Either a black person can walk freely in public without being shot by a white cop, or they can't. Ether the cop is racist, or he's not. Either the black man is being treated poorly or shot to death on sight by police because of his skin color, or he's not. Or, he's being treated fairly, simply because shooting a black man on sight is murder and the black man is worth just as much equal protection under the law by law enforcement as a white man is.

A harmonious society doesn't have riots. It doesn't have as rife poverty, substance abuse, or domestic violence.

Unfortunately, this society is and never will be Utopian, or harmonious. Would it be idyllic? Yes. Is it possible? Not currently, and not for the foreseeable future. The one thing that gets in the way of all that is human nature.
 
Last edited:
I don't justify government sanctioned human rights violations no matter what the population. That's what makes me pro life, and you a negative eugenics baby killing pig.

Only rights don't exist for the unborn. Hmm..... Because they're not born.

Many people who are anti-abortion are also anti-gay marriage. They don't give a stuff about human rights.
Irrelevant Ted herring. Stick to the subject, baby killer.

Ah, so we have to stick to things only you're comfortable with.

How many babies have I killed exactly?

Your use of insults is just showing that you really don't have much of an argument at all.
It's not so much staying in my comfort zone, which is quite inclusive, as it is sticking to the subject.

Insulting people is "sticking to the subject"? Really?
 
No, we're aware of the pervs who are in the baby market. Another reason to step up protection for children.
Are you aware of just how broken our adoption system is? A lot of those kids never get adopted and spend their entire childhood in dysfunctional group homes. Because people aren't adopting enough. There are many, many newly married gay couples who would love to adopt if they were allowed. Many of these gay couples are healthy, happy people with good finances and nurturing personalities. They could give some of these children a better life than they'll otherwise have if you'd let them.
 
I don't justify government sanctioned human rights violations no matter what the population. That's what makes me pro life, and you a negative eugenics baby killing pig.

Only rights don't exist for the unborn. Hmm..... Because they're not born.

Many people who are anti-abortion are also anti-gay marriage. They don't give a stuff about human rights.
Irrelevant Ted herring. Stick to the subject, baby killer.

Ah, so we have to stick to things only you're comfortable with.

How many babies have I killed exactly?

Your use of insults is just showing that you really don't have much of an argument at all.
It's not so much staying in my comfort zone, which is quite inclusive, as it is sticking to the subject.

Insulting people is "sticking to the subject"? Really?
No, we're aware of the pervs who are in the baby market. Another reason to step up protection for children.
Are you aware of just how broken our adoption system is? A lot of those kids never get adopted and spend their entire childhood in dysfunctional group homes. Because people aren't adopting enough. There are many, many newly married gay couples who would love to adopt if they were allowed. Many of these gay couples are healthy, happy people with good finances and nurturing personalities. They could give some of these children a better life than they'll otherwise have if you'd let them.
People wait years for infants and risk their lives to adopt them from other countries. There are never enough FOSTER families....but that's a whole different animal. Baby killers like to pretend the two situations are exactly the same, and they lie when they maintain ""there aren't enough adoptive parents" when they know what they mean is "there aren't enough foster families". Fostering and taking on older children who have been temporarily removed from abusive parents is a whole different animal that includes behavioral and learning issues, the threat of harm, long term entanglement with the state and involvement with the fucked up birth families.
 
No, we're aware of the pervs who are in the baby market. Another reason to step up protection for children.
Are you aware of just how broken our adoption system is? A lot of those kids never get adopted and spend their entire childhood in dysfunctional group homes. Because people aren't adopting enough. There are many, many newly married gay couples who would love to adopt if they were allowed. Many of these gay couples are healthy, happy people with good finances and nurturing personalities. They could give some of these children a better life than they'll otherwise have if you'd let them.
I know the foster system intimately and what you propose is that we kill infants to force adoptive parents to take on the fucked up older children from abusive parents. It doesn't work that way. Two separate things. The state takes YEARS to terminate parental rights, forcing the children into multiple foster homes, moving them in and out of their birth families, requiring fosters and potential adoptive parents to engage in extensive interactions with the state and the birth families. Most people who want to adopt a baby want to raise the child as their own. They aren't interested in dysfunctional relationships with abusers or psychotic state directives.
 
No, we're aware of the pervs who are in the baby market. Another reason to step up protection for children.
Are you aware of just how broken our adoption system is? A lot of those kids never get adopted and spend their entire childhood in dysfunctional group homes. Because people aren't adopting enough. There are many, many newly married gay couples who would love to adopt if they were allowed. Many of these gay couples are healthy, happy people with good finances and nurturing personalities. They could give some of these children a better life than they'll otherwise have if you'd let them.
I know the foster system intimately and what you propose is that we kill infants to force adoptive parents to take on the fucked up older children from abusive parents. It doesn't work that way. Two separate things. The state takes YEARS to terminate parental rights, forcing the children into multiple foster homes, moving them in and out of their birth families, requiring fosters and potential adoptive parents to engage in extensive interactions with the state and the birth families. Most people who want to adopt a baby want to raise the child as their own. They aren't interested in dysfunctional relationships with abusers or psychotic state directives.

Dear koshergrl
0. as intro point #0, Pedro de San Patricio is vehemently PROLIFE so you are addressing this to the perceived opponents that you and Pedro actually are criticizing in common. I think you are saying the ARGUMENTS that Pedro is using are used by "whiners to justify why abortion is needed?" but Pedro is saying we need to RESOLVE these issues so people DON'T use that as an excuse to justify abortion and compromise. You are both saying you don't want this used for abortion arguments, but you are saying the problem isn't as Pedro is simplifying it as, throwing both adoption and foster care into the same sound byte. Thanks for going into detail about the logistics and reality, as I believe all this is important to resolve.

1. Point #1 I really want to commend you on.
THANK YOU and Pedro for putting all this out here about the problems with either foster or adoptive systems
and how people like me don't know where the status is, and what REALLY needs to be changed.

I want to WORK WITH YOU on this issue!

I want to set up houses for older teens aging out of the system to be trained to manage houses as campus
or work-study programs to help other foster kids who are aging out of the system, or to train parents or teams
to adopt a kid so we CAN have more families prepared to handle either regular foster/adoptive settings
OR what I REALLY want to focus is training parents/families to take on SPECIAL cases of kids, teens or adults
who need special assistance, supervision or programs to handle specific diseases, mental issues, recovery or disabilities that require training or support to manage.

I would LOVE to set this up and train teams to replicate houses to offer this kind of care and training for more families
and communities, so it is sustainable and people have choices and support to say YES instead of NO I can't help.

Thanks koshergrl and Pedro de San Patricio
We may not agree which is the most critical problem
but I want to set up solutions that can address one or more of these anyway.

I want to help nonprofits to buy up sets of houses or whole apartments as a campus
to train families to take on these cases that require special training, support or assistance.

And once the families can handle it, then they can adopt or foster formally, but give them
a training ground to practice before deciding what they can take on or which person they can commit to helping
for whatever length of time, even temporarily if it's just for training purposes.

And the kids/clients can be trained also in some of the management if they are able to,
to create internships or jobs for people at the same time. Just because someone has
one type of disability doesn't mean they couldn't be trained to do another job like a work-study program at a school.

Some disabled vets or officers can still run a night desk job handling security, for example.
Why not set up coops that create jobs for medical or mental health interns, social workers or
administrators while offering training support for families considering foster care but who
would need added help if they are going to take on a specific kid or client requiring specialized care?

THANK YOU I'd love to work with you both, even on separate programs, as we need ALL OF THE ABOVE!!!
 
The Buffalo Case Pro-Life and Pro-Choice Can Work Together Mary Jacksteit

I searched online to try to find the coalition bringing together prochoice and prolife advocates
to work on common solutions. I found this article.

Personally for me, I started trying to address this in 1991 when Clinton took office
and I saw in advance that the prolife movement would get even more frustrated and
possibly become politically violent if there wasn't equal representation in govt and protection of interests.

So I first brought in a panel of prolife women activists and speakers
to a Prochoice Feminist women's group, I think it was in 1992 around the anniversary of Roe v Wade after all the election season was over?

And the meeting erupted in a volatile confrontation between a Planned Parenthood representative who verbally blamed a prolife Eagle Forum member with personal attacks against the whole prolife movement.

But the group welcomed Dr. Marcella Colbert with the Catholic Respect for Life Office
and invited her to come speak again. Her focus was that abortion was not good for women,
there was not responsibility sought for the men (who abuse abortion to dump responsibility and the emotional burdens on women, including the 80-85% rate of post-abortion syndrome and other problems not publicized with abortion that women suffer in silence), and she used the term individual instead of fetus or baby to avoid conflict, explaining that the science will show unique DNA for that individual forrmed at conception.
She stayed neutral and was able to communicate freely and openly without any emotional or political conflicts
but the other women got mixed responses.

When I tried this again more recently in the past two years, I brought in my friend Juda and other
women with Choice for Life who represented the women choosing to keep and raise their own
children after conception from rape and incest. The only conflict that couldn't be resolved was before
bringing the panel in, one woman in the group still protested and walked out and made it clear she would
not approve or be at the meeting the next week. But Iris Sizemore the Founder of the Women's Group
pleaded with the members to include these women as part of the mission statement to let every woman
define her own activism, and this includes prolife women who are helping rape and incest victims to
exercise and defend their own choices. On its face, upon first hearing that these women want to keep their
babies, people assume it is 'coerced by men' and they are being forced by society or religious pressures.
But the opposite is happening, all the pressure is to abort the pregnancies and cover up for the sins of the fathers.

So Juda wanted to change public perception and start defending these women and quit treating them
and their children as criminals or social rejects because of the rape committed by the fathers that have
nothing to do with the loving forgiving relationship between mother and child.

So I brought in Juda and two other volunteers who even agreed to be videotaped so you can see their
testimonies posted online. Nona with Eagle Restoration ministries and Patricia who was born of incest
(Juda was born of rape when 8 men gang raped her mother and she forgave them and had Juda who
is now one of the leading speakers invited worldwide to represent the voice of rape and incest victims
and to provide financial and spiritual support to any families facing such a crisis).

All the women in the group shared openly and stayed friendly with absolutely no disruptions this time.
One of my friends still was sure about Juda and the whole prolife politics,
but another woman who had argued a bit, hugged Juda afterwards and thanked her for coming
and explaining how abuse is the issue to address ourselves,
and not projecting the fear and blame on this issue on women.

The head of the group really loved Juda and invited her to come back.
So the women did appreciate each other reaching out and giving this a chance to have dialogue
and hear where each other is coming from.

And it didn't get emotional and disruptive like in the 1990's when I first tried this.
The volunteer who got jumped on by PP at the earlier meeting
(I think her name was Judi Brown or Judy Brown from Eagle Forum) even consulted
with a counselor regarding the severe traumatic PTSD that was caused by that horrible confrontation
she questioned if I had set up on purpose it was so bad. She invited me to a meeting at her church
addressing the prolife members about her outreach to prochoice feminists, and reported back to them
that the image of a "fear based and shame based culture" was causing the negative perception of prolife Christians,
and the message that was intended is that sex is not dirty but sacred and needed to be respected, as marriage is a holy sacrament but this message was getting lost,
and the point of Christianity was supposed to be positive not negative as it has been coming across.

We still have these problems today, but hopefully we are in a better place,
and more ready to address the real issues and solutions and to forgive how we
come across politically to each other. We can't let those differences, no matter how emotional, get in the way of solutions.

I just want to stop and thank the people who have to forgive all these misgivings
and negative perceptions and conflicts in order to work on solutions instead.
It is easier said than done, a real challenge to each and everyone here. I respect how hard that is, and thank you in advance for trying, even where we fail because we all have our limits and our key issues we cannot stand to see compromised by our imperfect political process.

Thanks to the Women's Group and the participating panelists and members who tried to
meet in person to overcome the divisions and mindsets keeping us apart, when we can do so much more if we find where we agree and focus there. I hope we continue on that path, and stop this habit of political backlash.

The good that we can do, can correct and outweigh all the bad that keeps us from trusting and trying to work together.

Thanks to Pedro de San Patricio for this thread,
and may the fabric of life weave us all together to make
the most beautiful tapestry, using all our diverse parts and pieces in its divine design.

Love and thanks to everyone here
Hugs from Houston
Yours truly,
Emily
 
Last edited:
tumblr_m7obgbb8qw1rwzsbso1_500.gif

You have no idea what you post.

You are very misinformed and greatly so. Your opinions maybe but not facts about liberals/catholics.


The thing is Pedro, as a Catholic I might become a liberal and worry about all you have said.

However, since liberals insist on being anti-Christian and pro-abortion, I realize they don't give a damn about any of those other things. I can't associate myself with liars and murderers.
What?
 
And that has nothing whatever to do with infant adoption.

:lol:

You meant child-trafficking, right?


So Adoption is "child trafficking" but slaughtering a child is "choice"

Yeah, you Communists are fucking evil to the core.
He's being deliberately obtuse. I never said all infant adoption was child trafficking.

But there is definitely a lot of it going on.

Now, now. Your posts are all here, for everyone to see. Trying to backpedal isn't going to save you.
 
And that has nothing whatever to do with infant adoption.

:lol:

You meant child-trafficking, right?


So Adoption is "child trafficking" but slaughtering a child is "choice"

Yeah, you Communists are fucking evil to the core.
He's being deliberately obtuse. I never said all infant adoption was child trafficking.

But there is definitely a lot of it going on.

Now, now. Your posts are all here, for everyone to see. Trying to backpedal isn't going to save you.
That isn't a backpedal, silly.

I'm just stating the obvious..you are not the sharpest tool in the shed. I never said you were smart, so it isn't backpedaling.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top