NoIDidn't Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Research was done recently that showed that pro-lifers are basically betraying the women that they talk into keeping their children with hopes of social programs helping them by turning around and demanding that their tax dollars not fund those programs for loose, irresponsible women. Seriously, which is it? If you are going to love the fetus, you must also love the baby/child/person that is born. Why is the fetus more important than the baby that is born? I was in line in Target one day and saw a young teen with her toddler that was acting out. The two women behind me were muttering "I feel sorry for that child, but at least she didn't kill it". And I turned around and asked them "then what are you going to do to help that child? Standing there judging its mother while knowing that she is having a hard time obviously isn't going to help it". The huffed off to another line. The pro-life bunch needs to change their name. They are birthers. Plain and simple. They care nothing about the child's plight after its birth. They care nothing about the parents of the child. Social programs could help these couples stay together to raise their child, but they want to end those programs. They want government in our uterus' but not in our pocketbooks. I fail to see how that makes any sense. And all this lofty talk about when life begins is pointless. Its like asking is an acorn a tree. Well, is it? Link to post Share on other sites
FleshNBones Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Research was done recently that showed that pro-lifers are basically betraying the women that they talk into keeping their children with hopes of social programs helping them by turning around and demanding that their tax dollars not fund those programs for loose, irresponsible women. Seriously, which is it? If you are going to love the fetus, you must also love the baby/child/person that is born. Why is the fetus more important than the baby that is born? I was in line in Target one day and saw a young teen with her toddler that was acting out. The two women behind me were muttering "I feel sorry for that child, but at least she didn't kill it". And I turned around and asked them "then what are you going to do to help that child? Standing there judging its mother while knowing that she is having a hard time obviously isn't going to help it". The huffed off to another line. The pro-life bunch needs to change their name. They are birthers. Plain and simple. They care nothing about the child's plight after its birth. They care nothing about the parents of the child. Social programs could help these couples stay together to raise their child, but they want to end those programs. They want government in our uterus' but not in our pocketbooks. I fail to see how that makes any sense. And all this lofty talk about when life begins is pointless. Its like asking is an acorn a tree. Well, is it?Once again, bill the children and they can pay it off when they are older. Maybe one day, that person will love his child in a way that his mother never could. Women are far too selfish nowadays. Link to post Share on other sites
mbeewood Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Do you think it is possible to believe abortion is morally wrong, yet still see that criminalizing it is bad public policy? I ask becasue the unstated assumption behind the anti-choice (aka "pro-life) position seems to be that if legal access to abortion can be curtailed, the practice will end. This is nonsense. Women had abortions in the US before Row v. Wade. Millions of women have illegal abortions all over the world every day. Since ending abortion is an impossibility, what is to be gained by criminalizing it? Abortion has nothing to do with religion or God. Link to post Share on other sites
chrissylee Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 statement. My position has less to do with a right to life than it does personal responsibility. Only a court can decide when a person has living rights. My opinion though, is that if a woman is taking all the actions necessary to concieve, she has a responsibility (as does the father) to see the gestation through. There are only a couple of reasons a mother wouldn't want to have the child: 1) Fear of not being able to care for the child. Answer: give it up for adoption, lack of resources is never a good excuse. 2) Fear of altering her body (vanity). Answer: this is a BS excuse, but one I have heard a few times, there is no answer to this other than the woman is vain and cruel. ). One of the reasons I choose to have an abortion was neither of these. I honestly think I would of died if I had to carry the baby for nine months. I was so sick in just the four weeks that I was pregnant I lost 8 pounds. (seeing how I only weighed 105 to begin with that wasn't good.) I also have severe digestive problems and the medicine I have to take to help me just get through my day without wanting to die is not good for pregnant women. My opinon is that if your God wanted me to have this baby he wouldn't make my stomach suck so bad that the though of suffering through nine months of pregnancy made me really depressed. Link to post Share on other sites
sally4sara Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 Once again, bill the children and they can pay it off when they are older. Maybe one day, that person will love his child in a way that his mother never could. Women are far too selfish nowadays. And what way would that be exactly? All you talk about is the cost of children, how much money, bill them later, money money money... So it boils down to someone with more money than the mother. I see. How many unwanted babies have you adopted in the name of stopping abortion? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts