Pro-lifers against abortion but yet turn a blind eye on world's starving children

[777]

Is this perplexing?
pro-lifers spend much time, money and energy to try to ban abortions in the hopes of saving potential lifes.
Yet, I do not see them fighting to protect the poor children that are already in this world. There are so many needy ones who are starving, sold to slavery, dying of diseases, homeless, abused ...
How about if we take care of those who are already here before focusing our energies on pregnancies that may never be (spontaneous abortions) or not wanted in the first place by the parents?
I don't get it, really. Aren't the priorities kind of screwed? I would love to hear from the pro-lifers who choose to fight against abortion but yet do not bother to help the desperate children, even just here in the USA.
How about taking your energy, your checkbooks and your good intentions and put them to good use that actually can have a real impact today on a child in your neighborhood or in the ghettos of the big cities?

 

[Kalam]

That's not necessarily true. I'm opposed to abortion and I also do what I can to fight poverty, starvation, and the like by donating money (religious requirement) and participating in organizations.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Is this perplexing?
pro-lifers spend much time, money and energy to try to ban abortions in the hopes of saving potential lifes.
Yet, I do not see them fighting to protect the poor children that are already in this world. There are so many needy ones who are starving, sold to slavery, dying of diseases, homeless, abused ...
How about if we take care of those who are already here before focusing our energies on pregnancies that may never be (spontaneous abortions) or not wanted in the first place by the parents?
I don't get it, really. Aren't the priorities kind of screwed? I would love to hear from the pro-lifers who choose to fight against abortion but yet do not bother to help the desperate children, even just here in the USA.
How about taking your energy, your checkbooks and your good intentions and put them to good use that actually can have a real impact today on a child in your neighborhood or in the ghettos of the big cities?

Oh, you "do not see"? Where are you looking? List for us PRECISELY what your sources are for evidence that pro-lifers don't fight to protect poor children in the world. EXACTLY what are your stats showing that they do nothing for children already here? Where do they come from?

How about before you tell us where to put our energy, checkbooks, and intentions, YOU put your proof where your fat mouth is? Otherwise, how about you put your bullshit where the sun don't shine?

 

[elvis]

Is this perplexing?
pro-lifers spend much time, money and energy to try to ban abortions in the hopes of saving potential lifes.
Yet, I do not see them fighting to protect the poor children that are already in this world. There are so many needy ones who are starving, sold to slavery, dying of diseases, homeless, abused ...
How about if we take care of those who are already here before focusing our energies on pregnancies that may never be (spontaneous abortions) or not wanted in the first place by the parents?
I don't get it, really. Aren't the priorities kind of screwed? I would love to hear from the pro-lifers who choose to fight against abortion but yet do not bother to help the desperate children, even just here in the USA.
How about taking your energy, your checkbooks and your good intentions and put them to good use that actually can have a real impact today on a child in your neighborhood or in the ghettos of the big cities?

how about if we turn this around? I would like to hear from YOU who say you are helping children by throwing money at them while supporting the crushing babies' skulls all the while.

How does that feel?

 

[tigerbob]

Is this perplexing?
pro-lifers spend much time, money and energy to try to ban abortions in the hopes of saving potential lifes.
Yet, I do not see them fighting to protect the poor children that are already in this world. There are so many needy ones who are starving, sold to slavery, dying of diseases, homeless, abused ...
How about if we take care of those who are already here before focusing our energies on pregnancies that may never be (spontaneous abortions) or not wanted in the first place by the parents?
I don't get it, really. Aren't the priorities kind of screwed? I would love to hear from the pro-lifers who choose to fight against abortion but yet do not bother to help the desperate children, even just here in the USA.
How about taking your energy, your checkbooks and your good intentions and put them to good use that actually can have a real impact today on a child in your neighborhood or in the ghettos of the big cities?

I'm pro choice, but my wife is pro life. She doesn't spend any "time, money and energy to try to ban abortions". It influences the way she votes, but only to a degree and not to the exclusion of all other issues. She has often given money to charities that help disadvantaged children, both locally and abroad.

I'm not sure why you believe that one sensitivity must automatically preclude another.

 

[xsited1]

Is this perplexing?
pro-lifers spend much time, money and energy to try to ban abortions in the hopes of saving potential lifes.
Yet, I do not see them fighting to protect the poor children that are already in this world. There are so many needy ones who are starving, sold to slavery, dying of diseases, homeless, abused ...
How about if we take care of those who are already here before focusing our energies on pregnancies that may never be (spontaneous abortions) or not wanted in the first place by the parents?
I don't get it, really. Aren't the priorities kind of screwed? I would love to hear from the pro-lifers who choose to fight against abortion but yet do not bother to help the desperate children, even just here in the USA.
How about taking your energy, your checkbooks and your good intentions and put them to good use that actually can have a real impact today on a child in your neighborhood or in the ghettos of the big cities?

Are you saying Obama should have been aborted?

 

[Inferno]

They also ture a blind eye to the fact that these same fetus that have protected so are the troops dying in the fiasco in Iraq that they for the most part support. They just like to think that being anti abortion is providing cannon fodder for very bad conflicts.

 

[elvis]

They also ture a blind eye to the fact that these same fetus that have protected so are the troops dying in the fiasco in Iraq that they for the most part support. They just like to think that being anti abortion is providing cannon fodder for very bad conflicts.

pigeon-hole much?

 

[Cecilie1200]

They also ture a blind eye to the fact that these same fetus that have protected so are the troops dying in the fiasco in Iraq that they for the most part support. They just like to think that being anti abortion is providing cannon fodder for very bad conflicts.

While I appreciate your valiant efforts at being both holier-than-thou and ignorantly self-satisfied, this post makes very little sense in English, which I think is the language you're attempting to use here.

I'll respond just as soon as you post something other than gibberish.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They also ture a blind eye to the fact that these same fetus that have protected so are the troops dying in the fiasco in Iraq that they for the most part support. They just like to think that being anti abortion is providing cannon fodder for very bad conflicts.

pigeon-hole much?

Those tortured, convoluted sentences are what you get when you try to take the moral high ground in defense of a truly heinous position.

 

[Inferno]

They also ture a blind eye to the fact that these same fetus that have protected so are the troops dying in the fiasco in Iraq that they for the most part support. They just like to think that being anti abortion is providing cannon fodder for very bad conflicts.

pigeon-hole much?

Those tortured, convoluted sentences are what you get when you try to take the moral high ground in defense of a truly heinous position.

I think I stand on very rational ground. You may not like what I said but that's okay. It isn't my problem that you hold the position on abortion that you have.

 

[tigerbob]

pigeon-hole much?

Those tortured, convoluted sentences are what you get when you try to take the moral high ground in defense of a truly heinous position.

I think I stand on very rational ground. You may not like what I said but that's okay. It isn't my problem that you hold the position on abortion that you have.

To say that anyone, let alone an entire group of people, would reject a woman's right to abortion so that more babies can be born who can be sent off to die in wars is quite the scummiest, absurd, and stupid thing I have ever seen posted on this board, and that is really saying something.

 

[elvis]

Those tortured, convoluted sentences are what you get when you try to take the moral high ground in defense of a truly heinous position.

I think I stand on very rational ground. You may not like what I said but that's okay. It isn't my problem that you hold the position on abortion that you have.

To say that anyone, let alone an entire group of people, would reject a woman's right to abortion so that more babies can be born who can be sent off to die in wars is quite the scummiest, absurd, and stupid thing I have ever seen posted on this board, and that is really saying something.

I will have to owe you a pos rep for that one.

 

[necritan]

I think I stand on very rational ground. You may not like what I said but that's okay. It isn't my problem that you hold the position on abortion that you have.

To say that anyone, let alone an entire group of people, would reject a woman's right to abortion so that more babies can be born who can be sent off to die in wars is quite the scummiest, absurd, and stupid thing I have ever seen posted on this board, and that is really saying something.

I will have to owe you a pos rep for that one.

I'll give him one....

 

[necritan]

Is this perplexing?
pro-lifers spend much time, money and energy to try to ban abortions in the hopes of saving potential lifes.
Yet, I do not see them fighting to protect the poor children that are already in this world. There are so many needy ones who are starving, sold to slavery, dying of diseases, homeless, abused ...
How about if we take care of those who are already here before focusing our energies on pregnancies that may never be (spontaneous abortions) or not wanted in the first place by the parents?
I don't get it, really. Aren't the priorities kind of screwed? I would love to hear from the pro-lifers who choose to fight against abortion but yet do not bother to help the desperate children, even just here in the USA.
How about taking your energy, your checkbooks and your good intentions and put them to good use that actually can have a real impact today on a child in your neighborhood or in the ghettos of the big cities?

This is easy.....

Those kids abroad...are not under the umbrella of the Constituton. The unborn children here are...

 

[Cecilie1200]

pigeon-hole much?

Those tortured, convoluted sentences are what you get when you try to take the moral high ground in defense of a truly heinous position.

I think I stand on very rational ground. You may not like what I said but that's okay. It isn't my problem that you hold the position on abortion that you have.

I'm sure you do think that. Most idiots and lunatics do. And it's not a matter of whether I liked it. It's a matter of whether or not it made any grammatical sense and was intelligible. And it isn't MY problem that you're functionally illiterate. Clean it up and speak clearly.

 

[sealybobo]

Is this perplexing?
pro-lifers spend much time, money and energy to try to ban abortions in the hopes of saving potential lifes.
Yet, I do not see them fighting to protect the poor children that are already in this world. There are so many needy ones who are starving, sold to slavery, dying of diseases, homeless, abused ...
How about if we take care of those who are already here before focusing our energies on pregnancies that may never be (spontaneous abortions) or not wanted in the first place by the parents?
I don't get it, really. Aren't the priorities kind of screwed? I would love to hear from the pro-lifers who choose to fight against abortion but yet do not bother to help the desperate children, even just here in the USA.
How about taking your energy, your checkbooks and your good intentions and put them to good use that actually can have a real impact today on a child in your neighborhood or in the ghettos of the big cities?

I've been asking this forever.

 

[tigerbob]

Is this perplexing?
pro-lifers spend much time, money and energy to try to ban abortions in the hopes of saving potential lifes.
Yet, I do not see them fighting to protect the poor children that are already in this world. There are so many needy ones who are starving, sold to slavery, dying of diseases, homeless, abused ...
How about if we take care of those who are already here before focusing our energies on pregnancies that may never be (spontaneous abortions) or not wanted in the first place by the parents?
I don't get it, really. Aren't the priorities kind of screwed? I would love to hear from the pro-lifers who choose to fight against abortion but yet do not bother to help the desperate children, even just here in the USA.
How about taking your energy, your checkbooks and your good intentions and put them to good use that actually can have a real impact today on a child in your neighborhood or in the ghettos of the big cities?

I've been asking this forever.

Then I'll repeat, why do you imagine that anyone who is against abortion does nothing for disadvantaged children? Do you believe the two have to be mutually exclusive? It would seem more logical that if someone cares about one life they are likely to care about another (though as in all cases there are ridiculously extreme exceptions). Or is it just the stereotype that Republicans are all pro life and that's why you are so willing to believe the worst about them in other respects?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Most conservatives and repugnicans are very much against abortion.

They are also pro-wealth (for themselves and friends only), as well as don't really give a shit about anyone else that isn't in their own little circle.

Rush Limbidiot is one. Bush Jr. is one. Cheney is one.

Need I go on? Those fucks don't care about anyone other than the party faithful. Remember when the repugnicans were telling us that the reason for the mortgage meltdown was because people were buying more home than they could afford?

Never mind the fact that it was caused by deregulation and the adjustable rate mortgages (and I think that was done so the upper crust could "flip" houses, which is why Washington did it).

And.......remember that during this time, the repugnicans were screaming about abortion and how it had to be stopped. Never mind the war or the economic crisis. They also did the smoke screen with civil unions and gay rights.

So....there's your proof.

 

[tigerbob]

Most conservatives and repugnicans are very much against abortion.

They are also pro-wealth (for themselves and friends only), as well as don't really give a shit about anyone else that isn't in their own little circle.

Rush Limbidiot is one. Bush Jr. is one. Cheney is one.

Need I go on? Those fucks don't care about anyone other than the party faithful. Remember when the repugnicans were telling us that the reason for the mortgage meltdown was because people were buying more home than they could afford?

Never mind the fact that it was caused by deregulation and the adjustable rate mortgages (and I think that was done so the upper crust could "flip" houses, which is why Washington did it).

And.......remember that during this time, the repugnicans were screaming about abortion and how it had to be stopped. Never mind the war or the economic crisis. They also did the smoke screen with civil unions and gay rights.

So....there's your proof.

Yeah - you do need to go on, and that's not proof. That's just you opining that 3 prominent conservatives have values that you personally don't agree with. It doesn't mean that that is the case, it doesn't mean that all conservatives have the values that you ascribe to them, it doesn't mean, in fact, anything at all.

For what it's worth, I think the values you mention are pretty repugnant as well. I'm not a republican, but I know plenty that are and they are hard working, generous and caring people. They give frequently to charity, either financially or of their own time. As do the Dems that I know. Compassion or lack of it doesn't divide as clearly into red and blue as you assert.

It is true that most of the Reps I know are pro life, but I don't see there being anything wrong with that, even though I personally don't agree with them. It's a choice based on personal values. And it certainly doesn't mean they are any less likely to feel compassion towards children who are suffering because all their time is taken up with campaigning for the rights of the unborn, which was the contention of the OP.

It is the biggest tragedy of this once great county that some people are so wrapped up in their petty bigotries that they refuse to acknowledge that anyone outside their own political sphere could possibly be a decent human being. A President was just elected on the basis of change and reaching across the aisle and all I continue to hear from both sides is hysteria and insults. Such people are not remotely interested in working together to solve the crisis with which America is currently struggling. All they are interested in is making you afraid of things and telling you who is to blame for them. Until the voting public manage to get past such utter folly, this country is doomed to continue lurching from left to right every 4 or 8 years with the resulting waste of time, effort and goodwill that always accompanies such polarized political agendas.