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

[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?

I've been asking this forever.

Then you've been a moron forever.

 

[elvis]

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.

this is not meant to be confrontational at this point.

you are generalizing to the nth degree.

and it was CLINTON who deregulated the banks. If you already believe that, fine.

What does being against abortion have to do with the economic crisis? nothing.

I am against abortion AND the Iraq War and I support the right for gays to marry. So what would the original poster do with someone like me?

 

[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.

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.

Really? There are decent people in both parties? You sure as hell couldn't tell that much around here.......either you're a "looney lib" or a "damn heartless neo-con", and, believe it or not, I've been called both on here and the truth is, I'm independent.

As far as the pro-life and gay rights thing? It seemed that everytime over the last admin wanted to sweep something under the rug and hide it in the news, they would get their party faithful to start shouting about abortion or gay marriage, and try to deflect the publics attention.

I personally don't vote along party lines. In some things, I'm exceedingly conservative, but in others, I tend to take a live and let live attitude.

I personally don't think there is anything wrong with letting a woman have a right to choose incidentally, as long as it is removed before the embryo (NOT human), has had time to develop a nervous system, usually after 40 days.

 

[Ocean56]

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?

It's not just perplexing, it is DESPICABLE, in my view anyway. I don't believe there is any rational person who wouldn't favor the regular practice of reliable contraception if pregnancy isn't wanted over abortion. I have practiced it for many years, and my method of birth control has never let me down.

For the anti-abortion zealots, many of whom are as opposed to all forms of contraception as well, their attitude is clear from their writing; they don't give a rat's behind what the life of a CHILD is like once born. It boils down (for THEM) to the heartless attitude, any "life," no matter how horrific, is better than no life at all. Many don't step up to the plate and adopt any of these children either. They conveniently take the "not my mistake, not my job to raise them" mentality.

Which is why I take anything an anti-abortion says or writes with a large degree of skepticism and DISbelief. They offer no convincing reason for me to respect their views. Therefore, I don't have respect for them at all.

 

[Ocean56]

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?

Awwwww, the TRUTH about anti-abortion zealots really hurts, doesn't it. What about the poisonous doctrines that many so-called "christian" churches preach against any form of birth control? Does your church consider any form of birth control a "sin," an attitude that makes NO sense whatsoever, since contraception PREVENTS abortion?

From all I have read and heard from so-called "prolifers," what "777" said was very accurate. But it's no surprise that these same prolifers would go ballistic at seeing it expressed so bluntly.

 

[Ocean56]

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.

Personally, I would like to see ALL abortions being made unnecessary, by offering reliable contraceptive methods either free or very low-cost to those who want and need it. I don't know of any rational person who prefers abortion over contraception, as it is far better to PREVENT unwanted pregnancy than to abort a pregnancy that has already occurred.

So what does YOUR church do to prevent unwanted pregnancies? Hmmm? Or does it do nothing more than spout that "if you don't want a baby, don't have sex" idiocy?

 

[Ocean56]

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.

Anti-choicers, those who want women to have only ONE choice when it comes to unwanted pregnancy (forced birth), hate being nailed on their own hypocrisy. Your post clearly indicates which side YOU fall on, which is the anti-choice side. Is that "clear" enough for you?

 

[Ocean56]

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.

Of course you have, as have many others who believe in the right of EACH woman to make the choice she feels is best for her. But the anti-choicers will keep ducking these and other questions forever, as they don't like their blatant hypocrisy being publicly exposed.