How do you justify...

[spectrumc01]

Explain this to me...

You are anti-abortion, or pro-life and you fight for the unborn child. If you are consistant with this message of every child deserves the right to be born, should you not also be in favor of financially supporting these programs...

- WIC
- Head Start
- School lunch programs
- Child vaccinations for every child (even for those parents who believe it causes autism)
- Welfare (so said children can be housed, fed, and clothed)
- Increasing the budget for child protective services
- Increasing the budget for foster care (as poor mothers will be putting their children up for adoptions if there is no abortion option)

As a financial conservative it costs more to raise a child in a poor, disfunctional home than it does to abort.

As a social liberal, women along with the father should have the choice of weather to abort or not, it doesn't become my business until I'm asked to pay for it.

As a human being I would hope all pregnancies go full term, but realistically I know they won't. I also know what it would take for me to be involved in one and the thought put into such a descision. It is not for me to decide what is best for someone elses life, just like I don't want the government deciding whats best for mine.

How do fiscal conservatives justify the anti abortion stance, and the cutting of all social programs?

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Spectrum:
* Abortion immediately terminates the life of the unborn child.
Cutting these programs does not immediately terminate life.
* Also, cutting government programs doesn't meant that same funding could not go to more cost-effective programs to help more children and save more lives.

I ask questions related to yours
* If pro-gun advocates don't want government regulating that freedom,
why can't they understand why pro-choice advocates don't want govt regulations either.
* As for the health care bill, that was passed out of urgency to save lives,
what is the difference between opposing that and opposing pro-life legislation
that argues for saving lives even if it takes government regulation?
How can prochoice people be against govt regulation of abortion but not health care?
How can prolife people be against govt regulation of health care and not abortion?

And other disturbing questions:
* From my friend Tom Wayburn: if prochoice advocates argue for the freedom of women to abort babies out of their bodies, why aren't they advocating for drug legalization and freedom of people to inject chemicals into their bodies that only affects that person?
* I also ask pro-life people, since obviously they don't require a law to be passed "making abortion illegal" to believe as they do -- by free will and reason to choose that position -- can they respect the freedom of other people to arrive at the same conclusion by free will and education instead of force of law? Since they would never do anything to support abortion, then clearly laws are not needed to enforce that; it can be done by pure choice!

 

[Avatar4321]

It's not the government's responsibility to raise children. It's the parents.

Why is personal responsibility such a difficult concept for some people? Do you live your life just trying to make excuses for it and to avoid doing anything for yourself?

 

[icyteru]

It's not the government's responsibility to raise children. It's the parents.

Why is personal responsibility such a difficult concept for some people? Do you live your life just trying to make excuses for it and to avoid doing anything for yourself?

I agree. It's the parents that make the children, not government.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Did anyone else get a cold chill in their bones at the phrase "costs more to raise them . . . than to abort"? As if COST-EFFECTIVENESS is the issue here?

 

[RDD_1210]

Did anyone else get a cold chill in their bones at the phrase "costs more to raise them . . . than to abort"? As if COST-EFFECTIVENESS is the issue here?

So you're in favor of health care for all regardless of cost I take it?

 

[RDD_1210]

It's not the government's responsibility to raise children. It's the parents.

Why is personal responsibility such a difficult concept for some people? Do you live your life just trying to make excuses for it and to avoid doing anything for yourself?

I agree. It's the parents that make the children, not government.

So then shouldn't it be the parents responsibility to make the decision as to whether or not to bring the child in to the world? Not the governments?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Explain this to me...

You are anti-abortion, or pro-life and you fight for the unborn child. If you are consistant with this message of every child deserves the right to be born, should you not also be in favor of financially supporting these programs...

- WIC
- Head Start
- School lunch programs
- Child vaccinations for every child (even for those parents who believe it causes autism)
- Welfare (so said children can be housed, fed, and clothed)
- Increasing the budget for child protective services
- Increasing the budget for foster care (as poor mothers will be putting their children up for adoptions if there is no abortion option)

As a financial conservative it costs more to raise a child in a poor, disfunctional home than it does to abort.

As a social liberal, women along with the father should have the choice of weather to abort or not, it doesn't become my business until I'm asked to pay for it.

As a human being I would hope all pregnancies go full term, but realistically I know they won't. I also know what it would take for me to be involved in one and the thought put into such a descision. It is not for me to decide what is best for someone elses life, just like I don't want the government deciding whats best for mine.

How do fiscal conservatives justify the anti abortion stance, and the cutting of all social programs?

Supporting these programs should be voluntary, not forced.

Why do you compare a human life to dollars?

 

[RDD_1210]

Explain this to me...

You are anti-abortion, or pro-life and you fight for the unborn child. If you are consistant with this message of every child deserves the right to be born, should you not also be in favor of financially supporting these programs...

- WIC
- Head Start
- School lunch programs
- Child vaccinations for every child (even for those parents who believe it causes autism)
- Welfare (so said children can be housed, fed, and clothed)
- Increasing the budget for child protective services
- Increasing the budget for foster care (as poor mothers will be putting their children up for adoptions if there is no abortion option)

As a financial conservative it costs more to raise a child in a poor, disfunctional home than it does to abort.

As a social liberal, women along with the father should have the choice of weather to abort or not, it doesn't become my business until I'm asked to pay for it.

As a human being I would hope all pregnancies go full term, but realistically I know they won't. I also know what it would take for me to be involved in one and the thought put into such a descision. It is not for me to decide what is best for someone elses life, just like I don't want the government deciding whats best for mine.

How do fiscal conservatives justify the anti abortion stance, and the cutting of all social programs?

Why do you compare a human life to dollars?

I take it you too are in favor of making sure everyone gets healthcare they need, regardless of cost.

 

[Oddball]

How do fiscal conservatives justify the anti abortion stance, and the cutting of all social programs?

Maybe because most fiscal conservatives are for the elimination of federalization of both matters.

Don't mistake old school fiscal conservatism (i.e. Goldwater and Taft) for the nanny-statist social brand (i.e. Pats Buchanan and Robertson).

 

[Sherry]

Explain this to me...

You are anti-abortion, or pro-life and you fight for the unborn child. If you are consistant with this message of every child deserves the right to be born, should you not also be in favor of financially supporting these programs...

- WIC
- Head Start
- School lunch programs
- Child vaccinations for every child (even for those parents who believe it causes autism)
- Welfare (so said children can be housed, fed, and clothed)
- Increasing the budget for child protective services
- Increasing the budget for foster care (as poor mothers will be putting their children up for adoptions if there is no abortion option)

As a financial conservative it costs more to raise a child in a poor, disfunctional home than it does to abort.

As a social liberal, women along with the father should have the choice of weather to abort or not, it doesn't become my business until I'm asked to pay for it.

As a human being I would hope all pregnancies go full term, but realistically I know they won't. I also know what it would take for me to be involved in one and the thought put into such a descision. It is not for me to decide what is best for someone elses life, just like I don't want the government deciding whats best for mine.

How do fiscal conservatives justify the anti abortion stance, and the cutting of all social programs?

Are you only applying that attitude towards abortion.....or welfare issues as well??

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Explain this to me...

You are anti-abortion, or pro-life and you fight for the unborn child. If you are consistant with this message of every child deserves the right to be born, should you not also be in favor of financially supporting these programs...

- WIC
- Head Start
- School lunch programs
- Child vaccinations for every child (even for those parents who believe it causes autism)
- Welfare (so said children can be housed, fed, and clothed)
- Increasing the budget for child protective services
- Increasing the budget for foster care (as poor mothers will be putting their children up for adoptions if there is no abortion option)

As a financial conservative it costs more to raise a child in a poor, disfunctional home than it does to abort.

As a social liberal, women along with the father should have the choice of weather to abort or not, it doesn't become my business until I'm asked to pay for it.

As a human being I would hope all pregnancies go full term, but realistically I know they won't. I also know what it would take for me to be involved in one and the thought put into such a descision. It is not for me to decide what is best for someone elses life, just like I don't want the government deciding whats best for mine.

How do fiscal conservatives justify the anti abortion stance, and the cutting of all social programs?

Why do you compare a human life to dollars?

I take it you too are in favor of making sure everyone gets healthcare they need, regardless of cost.

No, I think people should be held accountable for their own healthcare. I've raised five children without ever having health insurance. When medical attention was needed I either paid the bill in it's entirety or set up a payment plan, depending on the amount due. Bottom line, the bills were paid and I didn't need an insurance company or the governments input.

 

[RDD_1210]

Why do you compare a human life to dollars?

I take it you too are in favor of making sure everyone gets healthcare they need, regardless of cost.

No, I think people should be held accountable for their own healthcare. I've raised five children without ever having health insurance. When medical attention was needed I either paid the bill in it's entirety or set up a payment plan, depending on the amount due. Bottom line, the bills were paid and I didn't need an insurance company or the governments input.

So then why do you compare a human life to dollars?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Did anyone else get a cold chill in their bones at the phrase "costs more to raise them . . . than to abort"? As if COST-EFFECTIVENESS is the issue here?

So you're in favor of health care for all regardless of cost I take it?

Do you often assume that your perspective on the world is the only one available? If so, why?

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's not the government's responsibility to raise children. It's the parents.

Why is personal responsibility such a difficult concept for some people? Do you live your life just trying to make excuses for it and to avoid doing anything for yourself?

I agree. It's the parents that make the children, not government.

So then shouldn't it be the parents responsibility to make the decision as to whether or not to bring the child in to the world? Not the governments?

Yes, that makes perfect sense. Since the parents have the responsibility to care for the children they make, that means they should have sole ultimate decision-making power over whether their children live or die. Did you want to extend that all the way until the kid is eighteen, or was there a point beforehand that you thought it might be okay for the government to object to child killing?

Where did you learn your logic skills, Adolf Hitler Elementary? You're a breathtaking mixture of immature and evil all at once.

 

[RDD_1210]

Did anyone else get a cold chill in their bones at the phrase "costs more to raise them . . . than to abort"? As if COST-EFFECTIVENESS is the issue here?

So you're in favor of health care for all regardless of cost I take it?

Do you often assume that your perspective on the world is the only one available? If so, why?

Not at all. Now your turn to answer what I asked.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I take it you too are in favor of making sure everyone gets healthcare they need, regardless of cost.

No, I think people should be held accountable for their own healthcare. I've raised five children without ever having health insurance. When medical attention was needed I either paid the bill in it's entirety or set up a payment plan, depending on the amount due. Bottom line, the bills were paid and I didn't need an insurance company or the governments input.

So then why do you compare a human life to dollars?

Learn the difference between "Killing people because letting them live is too expensive is evil" and "everyone deserves a free ride at their neighbor's expense". If you can't tell the difference between socialized medicine and infanticide, then you're frankly too stupid/too evil to deserve any more time here.

For the record, I don't think YOU deserve healthcare on someone else's dime, but you'll be happy to know that I still think the government should prevent people from actively murdering you because your existence is inconvenient to them. Contemplate the difference, and you're welcome.

 

[RDD_1210]

I agree. It's the parents that make the children, not government.

So then shouldn't it be the parents responsibility to make the decision as to whether or not to bring the child in to the world? Not the governments?

Yes, that makes perfect sense. Since the parents have the responsibility to care for the children they make, that means they should have sole ultimate decision-making power over whether their children live or die. Did you want to extend that all the way until the kid is eighteen, or was there a point beforehand that you thought it might be okay for the government to object to child killing?

Where did you learn your logic skills, Adolf Hitler Elementary? You're a breathtaking mixture of immature and evil all at once.

Oh I see, you like taking it to extremes. Ok then. Are you in favor of outlawing masturbation or a woman having her period?

 

[RDD_1210]

No, I think people should be held accountable for their own healthcare. I've raised five children without ever having health insurance. When medical attention was needed I either paid the bill in it's entirety or set up a payment plan, depending on the amount due. Bottom line, the bills were paid and I didn't need an insurance company or the governments input.

So then why do you compare a human life to dollars?

Learn the difference between "Killing people because letting them live is too expensive is evil" and "everyone deserves a free ride at their neighbor's expense". If you can't tell the difference between socialized medicine and infanticide, then you're frankly too stupid/too evil to deserve any more time here.

For the record, I don't think YOU deserve healthcare on someone else's dime, but you'll be happy to know that I still think the government should prevent people from actively murdering you because your existence is inconvenient to them. Contemplate the difference, and you're welcome.

Ahhh, I got it. You're all about protecting the rights of a fetus, but once that child is born...fuck 'em they're on their own. Solid thought process.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So you're in favor of health care for all regardless of cost I take it?

Do you often assume that your perspective on the world is the only one available? If so, why?

Not at all. Now your turn to answer what I asked.

I'm sorry that wasn't clear enough for you. Let me spell it out.

Your worldview is an ignorant, uninformed, and frankly scary piece of shit. Ergo, no matter how much you THINK that any concern for other human beings MUST automatically follow your bullshit opinion that they are therefore entitled to cradle-to-grave coddling from the government, it doesn't. And the more you try to shoehorn your blind liberal agenda into any and every topic, regardless of how wildly inappropriate and irrelevant it might be, the more of a worthless oxygen thief you convince me that you are.

Or to put it more simply, any time you assume that I agree with anything that comes out of YOUR damaged brainpan, you're wrong. Just write that down somewhere, and proceed from that.